Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

Message of Condolence

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the General Assembly of Georgia expressing sorrow on the death of Sir Winston Churchill, together with the text of the speech made by the representative who moved the Resolution on that occasion. I will put both of these in the Library where they can be seen by hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

National Building Agency

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will arrange for the National Building Agency to give advice on how to use modern methods of construction which do not necessitate the use of bricks.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. James Boyden): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to the hon. Member on 21st December, 1964, the National Building Agency does precisely this.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the National Building Agency specialise in or concentrate on this problem, because the use of these other materials will lead to efficiency in building? How long will the shortage of bricks go on?

Mr. Boyden: When advising on the most suitable techniques for a particular scheme, the National Building Agency

has regard to building efficiency as a whole and not the availability of any one particular material. As for the bricks situation, I cannot be a prophet, but the situation is reasonable.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Can the Minister say, following inquiries made in the last Parliament, whether shipyards are being used to any extent in the production of prefabricated sections?

Mr. Boyden: Some work is going on, but I should prefer the hon. Member to put down a Question on that point.

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many local authorities have approached the National Building Agency with requests for assistance with their housing programmes; and what have been the results.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent local authorities are using the National Building Agency to advise them on their housebuilding programmes; and to what extent he is encouraging them to do so.

Mr. Boyden: I am informed that more than 150 local authorities, groups of authorities, and new town corporations have approached the National Building Agency about building methods. Many of these inquiries are still being followed up. My right hon. Friend, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Minister on Housing and Local Government, is strongly encouraging housing authorities to make the maximum use of the Agency's services.

Mr. Mawby: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, but is he aware that nowadays it is not a question of choosing either one or the other method of building but of using what is best in the traditional type of building along with the industrial form of building; and that, married together, they can probably give us the answer to the housing problem?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Plasterboard

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the shortage of building materials, especially plasterboard; and what steps he intends to take to overcome such shortages.

Mr. Boyden: Representations have been made by twelve local authorities in Scotland about delays in the delivery of building materials, especially plasterboard. As my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) on 1st February, he has met the producers of the key building materials. Difficulties should ease progressively as the additional capacity which has been promised becomes available.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that no local authorities in England are suffering from or have protested about these shortages? If it does, it is not my impression. Can he tell me, in particular, what are the delivery dates for plasterboard? Is is not the case that Fife County Council had to wait many months for it and that this is having an effect on holding up building progress? What are the implications behind my right hon. Friend's speech at the weekend, in which he talked about shortages of cement?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir, to the first part of the question. Delivery dates are very difficult to give because they vary from time to time, but the manufacturers have devised a scheme under which they quote a common delivery period throughout the country, and this is probably the best way of spreading available supplies as fairly as possible.

New Defence Establishments (Construction Techniques)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for reducing the use of bricks in connection with the construction of new defence establishments; and what plans he has in that connection to make greater use of modern substitutes such as prefabricated panels.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent he intends to use bricks in the construction of new defence establishments; and what plans he has to use modern substitutes.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): My Department is increasingly applying new and better techniques in the construction of defence establishments. The availability

of materials, including bricks, is one of the factors on which the choice of technique depends.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a case in point where the Government can give a lead and set an example to the building industry to get away from traditional materials and to use modern techniques?

Mr. Pannell: We are increasingly using non-traditional materials and methods in providing housing, messes, offices, barrack blocks and schools in the Armed Forces. We are on this job all the time.

Mrs. Short: Since we have spent over £20,000 million during the last 13 years on so-called defence, does my right hon. Friend not think that we should be using scarce materials and labour on building houses for the people instead?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, but that raises other points. We are talking not about the £20,000 million on defence but about decent accommodation for the Armed Forces, to which we are prepared to give a high priority.

Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there will be no delay in the construction work in connection with the Polaris base near Holy Loch due to shortage of materials?

Mr. Pannell: I do not think that that arises on this Question. In answer to a previous supplementary question, I was informing my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) of the need to house Service personnel. This is another question.

Mr. Urwin: Despite what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said about getting away from conventional building methods, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity to maintain and fully capitalise the available resources of craft and skill in traditional methods in the industry?

Mr. Pannell: I recognise that the great bulk of building is done on the basis of traditional skills, but I am afraid that we will have to get away from them and bring in industrialised and unorthodox methods if we are to master the load on the building industry.

House of Commons (Parliamentary Control)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in his discussions on Parliamentary control of the House of Commons.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will now make a statement on the Parliamentary control of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. C. Pannell: I am sorry but I cannot add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 11th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Shinwell: In view of my right hon. Friend's advocacy of this change for the last 15 years, is it not about time that he swept this stupid anachronism under the carpet? Can he say when we are going to have a definite pronouncement?

Mr. Pannell: My right hon. Friend would not expect me, standing here at the Dispatch Box, to go further than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was prepared to go last Thursday. I would only quote, in that context, some lines that occur to me from Louis Untermeyer's "Prayer":
From compromise and things half done
Keep me with stern and stubborn pride.
By which I mean that I hope that the settlement, when it comes, will please my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope, for my right hon. Friend's sake, that it does. Does he recognise that we have been pressing this for a very long time, I think with his support? Can he tell us precisely what is holding this settlement up? Is it because the Government are determined to get a solution which will satisfy this side, or is it because they are trying to get something which will mollify the other side?

Mr. Pannell: I can only say to my hon. Friend that while some people may have been waiting for this for 15 years I have been working for it for 15 years, and I am only too glad that so many people on both sides have caught up.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Minister bear in mind that improved facilities for hon. Members are of much more value than constitutional upheavals of one kind or another? Will he continue the good work of his predecessor in this connection and lay off the Lord Great Chamberlain?

Mr. Pannell: Without going into the larger arguments involved, this is the only legislature in the Commonwealth which does not have complete command over its own accommodation. I should have thought that everything proved—and this has been proved in all parts of the word—that, apart from economic advantages, self-respect is the first consideration.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In so far as the Questions have been concerned with the House of Commons, is the right hon. Gentleman consulting the different parties in the House to get a broad section of opinion?

Mr. Pannell: As is well known on the Front Bench, there has been full consultation through the usual channels. There is nothing I know, standing at the Dispatch Box, which is not known by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Building Industry (Productivity)

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the percentage increase of productivity on new works in the building industry for the last four quarters for which the figures are available.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the percentage increase in productivity in the building industry on new works for the last four quarters for which figures are available.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement about the percentage productivity increase on new building in the last available four quarters.

Mr. Boyden: Provisional figures suggest that the output per operative of contractors' labour employed on new work


increased in 1964 overall by about 6 per cent. The figures for the individual quarters were:


1st Quarter
…
-4 per cent.


2nd Quarter
…
+8 per cent.


3rd Quarter
…
No Change


4th Quarter
…
+2 per cent.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister got the comparable figures for direct labour?

Mr. Boyden: No, Sir.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, from the point of view of direct labour—and I have had some experience of this both as an operative and as the chairman of a direct works department—direct labour departments in large cities use the most modern methods of construction, whereas in many cases the large building firms do not use these methods?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir, but the difficulty in comparing the work which direct labour departments do with new work is that the latter do mixed forms of work—maintenance and things of that kind—which makes the figures almost impossible to compare.

Mrs. Short: Would my hon. Friend agree that productivity in the building industry is largely a question of the kind of management which it has? What steps does he intend to take to see that management in the building industry is improved? Will he see, in particular, that engineers and people technically qualified get jobs in management as against architects—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.")—I am sorry; I meant to say accountants and solicitors, who have no technological training and background?

Mr. Boyden: Management is a very important factor, and a great deal is going on to encourage management to improve itself by way of education, oganisation and so on.

Official Residences

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which members of the Government have, or are to have, official residences to what extent such residences have increased or decreased and what work has now been done on Admiralty House.

Mr. C. Pannell: Official residences are now occupied by the Prime Minister, the First Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. The number of official residences is the same as on 15th October last. The engineering and other services at Admiralty House are being overhauled and modernised and repairs and redecorations are being carried out.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What are the Government's intentions for Admiralty House?

Mr. Pannell: I could not answer that in anticipation of the finishing of the decorations. [Laughter.] The work at Admiralty House includes essential long deferred structural work and it is likely to cost about £100,000 in all [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Gentleman do his best to see that Admiralty House is retained as residential accommodation and not let his stern and stubborn pride turn it into merely Government offices?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and learned Gentleman enjoyed the privilege of being inside the building when he was P.P.S. to a previous Prime Minister. He therefore speaks with an intimacy of the building, of which I have no knowledge at all. I do not want to anticipate what is going to be done with the place, except to say that any assumption of superiority on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we are not as discriminating and tasteful in the use of historic accommodation as they—would be impertinent, would it not?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not taking part in these quite expensive redecorations without having some idea as to what the ultimate use of Admiralty House is going to be? Will he give an assurance that this is still intended to be a Ministerial residence? Can he also tell the House whether he has consulted any of his colleagues as to their taste in decoration?

Mr. Pannell: No, but let us get this perfectly straight. We are carrying on decorations which were started by the right hon. Gentleman's Administration.


As in many other spheres, we must complete the job even though we inherited a deficit. When the work on Admiralty House has been completed at the end of the year the upper floors will be available again as an official residence, as under the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not yet decided who will occupy this residence. The ground floor of Admiralty House will be available for Government hospitality.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend explain why it should cost £100,000 to put this place in order? Is it because the previous occupant made such a mess of it?

Mr. Pannell: I cannot answer for that, except to say that in 13 years most things concerned with the economy fell into disrepair and decay.

Ministry of Technology (Offices)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the cost of the office space being rented by the Ministry of Technology at Mill-bank Tower, S.W.1; what alternative accommodation was offered; and why it was rejected.

Mr. Boyden: It is not the practice to give details of rents paid for Government offices. The only other accommodation considered was a small area in Shell Mex House. It would have been more difficult to provide additional space there.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm or deny that 30,000 sq. ft. have been taken in this building at a cost in rent of £100,000 per annum? Would it not be a good idea if some of the Ministers who are taking up space in the centre of the Metropolis were to consult the Location of Offices Bureau to see whether they cannot go somewhere else where it is less crowded?

Mr. Boyden: I confirm that 30,000 sq. ft. of usable office space have been taken up.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent plumbing facilities have been authorised on the 11th floor of the Ministry of Technology's offices at Millbank Tower; what

they have cost; and under which Vote they were authorised.

Mr. C. Pannell: No plumbing work has been authorised on the 11th floor of Mill-bank Tower. My Department has sought an estimate of cost for providing separate lavatory and washing facilities for the Minister and senior officials.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister say whether he has any plans for installing bathrooms as part of the accommodation? If the average rent per square feet that I have been given in answer to previous Questions is correct, will he not confirm that if someone has a bath in this room once a week it will cost about £7 per bath?

Mr. Pannell: I notice that in the Press publicity in which the hon. Gentleman indulged in advance of this Question he referred to the fact that he had not a bath in his room at the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I only want to tell him, what he probably does not know, that there are, of course, three bathrooms in the House, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not bath outside.

Mr. Ramsden: Is it not a fact that this tower is now known in Whitehall as the "Corridors of Snow"?

Mr. Pannell: If that is the best the right hon. Gentleman can do for a joke, I suggest that he goes back to Harrogate. It is normal practice for a senior Minister to have a separate lavatory, both under this and the previous Government. There are 28 Ministers who have this facility. Ten have a separate bathroom, including the Minister of Public Building and Works—whose bathroom was installed, of course, over 20 years ago. I could give a list of them, but cleanliness was not unknown, of course, to the previous Administration, and I hope that it will be practised by this one.

Government Hospitality Fund (Cigarettes)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the expenditure of the Government Hospitality Fund on cigarettes in the last year; and what amount was spent in the last three months.

Mr. C. Pannell: Expenditure in 1964 was £481. In the three months from 1st November, 1964, to 31st January, 1965, the amount spent dropped to £86.

Mr. Lewis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it rather odd that he is spending money on cigarettes for either his friends or his enemies—I do not know which—while at the same time the Government are banning advertising of cigarettes on television? Is not this an indication that the Government are engaging in pure prejudice against independent television companies?

Mr. Speaker: Order. On any conceivable view, that must be asking for an expression of opinion. It is quite out of order.

Armed Forces (Married Quarters)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many new married quarters he proposes to start for the Armed Forces during the next financial year; and for how many of these houses sites are not yet available.

Mr. Boyden: About 3,850 quarters are due to be started in 1965–66. Two sites are not yet available, but negotiations for these should be completed in time for building to start during that year.

Mr. Digby: In that case, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that he will press on with this work as soon as possible?

Mr. Boyden: Yes. The two sites in question are at Boulmer, in Northumberland, for 46 married quarters and at Saxa Vord, in the Shetlands, where 44 married quarters are to be built, and these should present no difficulty.

Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that nothing condemns the previous Administration more than their utter neglect of the interests of married couples in the Services?

Forces Works Services (Staff)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total of staff, industrial and non-industrial, which his Department took over from the Forces Works Services; and what is the total now employed in work undertaken for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend's Department took over 12,879 non-industrial

and 49,858 industrial staff from the Service Departments. Owing to the integration that has taken place since the merger, the number of staff now engaged on work for the Armed Forces cannot be separately identified.

Mr. Digby: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that, now that this work has been centralised, there will be some resulting economy as well as, we hope, an increase in efficiency through the use of industrial methods?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir. I think that the most striking feature of the work is that the actual amount of works services has gone up from £197 million in 1963–64 to the provision for the coming year of £244 million—an increase of about 25 per cent.—and the expectation is that the number of industrial staff will be reduced by something over 2,000. Therefore, although the non-industrial staff has increased, the work alone indicates that this is an economy. In addition, of course, the Department is undertaking a great deal of pioneering and new work in connection with research and development.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a long list of plumbers wanting married quarters, and what does he intend to do about it?

Staff

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what reduction in his total staff he contemplates in the year 1965–66.

Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend expects to reduce the total staff, industrial and non-industrial, of the Department by over 2,000 during 1965–66.

Minister (Overseas Visits)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which of the sites of overseas contracts for which his Department is responsible he has visited or intends to visit.

Mr. C. Pannell: After completing a tour of all the Ministry's regions in this country, I shall be visiting Germany next month. I hope to visit other overseas regions later in the year in so far as the Parliamentary situation permits.

Mr. Allason: Does the Minister realise that visits to sites overseas are a tremendous encouragement for the people working there, and is he satisfied with his performance as compared with that of his energetic predecessor?

Mr. Pannell: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that what is dimly apparent to him is blazing daylight-clear to me. With regard to the remainder of the supplementary question, I can only say that, probably, had the Parliamentary situation been under my predecessor as it is now, even he could not have been the most travelled Minister, as he undoubtedly was.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend persuade the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to pair with him?

Mr. Pannell: I would not swop my pair with him.

Government Departments (Building Leases)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many square feet of office space now occupied by Government Departments are covered by leases expiring not later than 1972.

Mr. Boyden: In buildings leased by this Ministry, about 10,000,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Hall: As all office building in Greater London and the Metropolitan area will come to a virtual standstill over the next seven years, does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is likely to be any great difficulty in rehousing these Departments at the expiration of their leases, except at very considerably increased rents, or is it proposed to move them out of London altogether?

Mr. Boyden: Dispersal is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to accommodating Departments, many of the leases no doubt will be renegotiated.

Mr. Ramsden: What steps is the Minister taking for the replacement of this accommodation when it ceases to be available?

Mr. Boyden: A good deal of Ministry building is going on to provide new

building for the Government service as a whole.

Banqueting House, Whitehall

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what use is being made of the Banqueting House in Whitehall.

Mr. C. Pannell: The Banqueting House is open to the public as an historic building. When it is not so open it can also be made available for certain other purposes, such as important evening receptions, principally those given by the Government, and for suitable entertainments.

Mr. Hall: How often has the Banqueting House been used for the kind of entertainments he has referred to? How much does the public use it? How often is it used? Is it being used or visited to any extent?

Mr. Pannell: Since the Banqueting House was reopened in September 1964, eight functions have been held there, of which six were receptions and two were concerts. The building has been little used for concerts because the acoustics are not very satisfactory. There is noise from the traffic in Whitehall. We are seeing if means can be found to overcome these drawbacks.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this very beautifully maintained building justifies more attention from his Department by way of trying to remedy the undoubted rather bleak atmosphere? There is practically nothing in there. The pictures are not the best that Government sources could provide. Further, the building is being visited to a very meagre extent, according to inquiries I made when I visited it a few weeks ago.

Mr. Pannell: I do not know about that. The number of applications I have received to allow the most curious type of functions to be held there, including wedding receptions, tends to make me believe that the Banqueting House is rather well known. Because it is such an exceptional building, I am restricting its use to functions which are themselves of special importance and significant. These must generally be evening functions so as not to interfere with the


admission of the public, but I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Whitehall Redevelopment (Report)

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects to receive the final report of Sir Leslie Martin on the redevelopment of Whitehall.

Mr. C. Pannell: Not later than a month from now.

Mr. Sharples: Will the report be made available to Members of the House and, if possible, be published? Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to appoint the architects for the individual projects?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman, because of the position he held in my Ministry, will know that there was no commitment to publish, but I hope to publish the report after I have considered it. No architects have been appointed for individual schemes for which I am responsible, except for the Broad Sanctuary scheme, for which Mr. Whitfield is the architect. The scheme will not begin until I have considered Sir Leslie Martin's Report.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Minister consider getting his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find some time for a debate on this Report when it is published?

Mr. Pannell: We had better see the report first, but, having had a couple of interviews with Sir Leslie Martin and understanding the scope and ambit of the report and its importance, it seems to me that it would be one of the subjects on which hon. Members on both sides of the House would have something to say.

Members (Office Accommodation)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress is being made with providing simple office accommodation for Members of Parliament.

Mr. C. Pannell: I am carrying out the programme described in my reply to my hon. Friend on 1st February. In addition, preparations are proceeding on the scheme to build over Star Chamber Court, which could provide space for nearly 70 Members.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome my right hon. Friend's energy and vigour in this matter, but is he aware that there are still very many Members on both sides of the House who lack any simple office accommodation, that the longer it is left the more difficult it becomes, and that none of these hon. Members, so far as I know, wants separate lavatory or other bathroom accommodation?

Mr. Pannell: I am particularly seized of all this. My hon. Friend came back to the House at the last election and I would ask him to believe that some progress was made in his absence. Three hundred and ten Members now have a separate desk and filing cabinet. A further 21 desk places have recently been equipped in rooms in the Upper Committee Corridor. Between 40 and 50 desk places will be available after the Recess in 54 Parliament Street. Accommodation for a further 28 Members will be made available in the south block of the roof space, which is due for completion in November 1965. The allocation of space in the Star Chamber Court building will be a matter for the House to decide. Therefore, we are making some progress.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why so many rooms on the upper floor have been allocated to Ministers? Is it because there are so many of them in this Administration?

Mr. Pannell: That supplementary question is getting rather bleak now. It has been asked four or five times since I have been at this Box. The answer is that I am responsible for allocating rooms to Ministers. I am not responsible for allocating rooms to Members.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the accommodation provided for Members in the Library is very efficient and satisfactory in every way but that it could be more satisfactory if Members' papers were left in an orderly condition on their desks when they leave at night?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot deal with the Library as "simple office accommodation".

Cement Supplies

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, in view of the expanded building programme, what


steps he is taking to ensure an adequate supply of cement.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what action he has taken to ensure that the expanding building programme will not be held up by a shortage of cement;
(2) from which areas is it hoped to increase the output of cement needed for the expanding building programme.

Mr. Boyden: Since last autumn the Department has been discussing with the cement manufacturers the future level of demand for cement and their plans for increasing manufacturing capacity. New capacity is being provided at Westbury in Wiltshire, Weardale in County Durham, at Tunstead in Derbyshire, and Padeswood in Flintshire. The first two are expected to be in production by the autumn of 1965, and the second two by about the end of the year. There are further plans for future extensions, but these are still subject to planning or other considerations and it is not yet possible to give specific dates for their operation or capacity. As a temporary measure six disused kilns in Kent are being brought back into use and supplies of cement clinker for grinding are being imported by the industry. We are, however, worried about possible shortages in the next few months.

Mr. Murray: In view of my hon. Friend's answer, in further consultations with the cement manufacturers will he take into consideration the position of nearby residents and the constant fall-out of cement dust and consider whether the Government can give any help, in the same way as they have done at London Airport for a different purpose?

Mr. Boyden: We are very conscious of the nuisance to which my hon. Friend refers. My right hon. Friend is responsible for the Alkali Inspectorate and it is well aware of the developments. None of the old kilns will be brought into use without new precipitators being fitted, and I have already promised my hon. Friend that I will visit the sites in question to see that everything possible is done to prevent nuisance.

Mr. Dodds: Is my hon. Friend aware that these cement kilns went out of existence because it was said that precipitators could not be got to take out

the dust? In view of the deep passions which have been aroused over the years in Kent by this blight, will my hon. Friend ensure that much more is done to reassure people in the area that they will not again have to suffer for this welcome news about cement? Can we at least expect that the alkali inspectors will visit the area around the clock and not just at office hours?

Mr. Boyden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the expected additional annual capacity from the plants to which he referred in his earlier answer, and can he also say whether the industry has been assured that, despite high interest rates, the Government are determined to maintain a sufficient building programme to absorb all the products of these plants when they are in operation?

Mr. Boyden: To answer the second part of that question would require a somewhat categorical assertion which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make. So far as increased production is concerned, the additional capacity will be about 1½ million tons per annum, which represents a 10 per cent. increase on existing capacity. The difficulty is that this will not come into effect until towards the end of 1965 and, therefore, this is looking even farther ahead than that.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate supplies of cement will be available in the North-West for the two new towns which have recently been announced?

Mr. Boyden: We are not satisfied with cement production generally. I should require notice of that question.

Industrialised Building

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to what extent industrialised building systems have been used during 1964 on contracts for Government Departments, local authorities and other public bodies; and how many different systems have been employed.

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will


estimate the capital value of constructional work to be carried out on new defence establishments in the next financial year by traditional building methods, and by industrialised building, respectively.

Mr. C. Pannell: I regret that comprehensive figures are not available for the whole of the public sector. About 17 per cent. of all local authority dwellings started in 1964 and about 21 per cent. of all new schools started in 1963–64 were being built by industrialised methods, involving 50 and 13 systems, respectively. My own Department is increasingly using industrialised methods in its programmes. My Ministry's estimated expenditure next financial year on all major new construction work in the United Kingdom, including civil engineering, at defence establishments, is about £54 million. Of this 8 million will be for industrialised building.

Mr. Costain: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Can he give an assurance that all industrialised systems which are being developed will he properly considered by his Ministry and that he will give a fair share to those members of the industry who are spending vast sums of money to develop these systems?

Mr. Pannell: Yes, Sir. Both I as Minister of Public Building and Works and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are giving not only anxious but continual consideration to these points.

Mr. Urwin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the structural value of the various systems which have been used in this field?

Mr. Pannell: There are too many systems at present. More than 300 have been or are being developed in this country. One of the tasks of the National Building Agency is to recommend to its clients the systems best suited to their needs and in this way to encourage the use of a limited number of the best systems.

Mr. Buchan: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the figures he mentioned has been produced in association with the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Pannell: No, I am afraid I could not without a separate Question.

Building Materials

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the current state of the supply of building materials.

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, if he has now made a detailed survey on the availability of building materials; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware of the shortage in Great Britain of building materials; and what are his plans, and how far they are advanced, to meet this shortage in Great Britain instead of importing these materials from abroad.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have investigated the supply of all the key materials, including those which caused concern in 1964 and I am continuing to watch the position very closely. I expect the present difficulties to diminish during this year in most cases as a result of increases in production, but there may be difficulties over cement during the next few months. With the exception of wood and wood products, imports of most building materials are a very small percentage of home production.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vigour of his administration is much appreciated on this side of the House?

Mr. Urwin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm a recent Press statement—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please rephrase that supplementary question? In that form it is out of order.

Mr. Urwin: Is it the case that there is to be additional investment in the next four years of £25 million by the brick-makers to increase brick capacity? If so, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this investment is sufficient to meet the requirements of the industry?

Mr. Pannell: I do not know whether I can answer for all that time ahead, except to say that I have met the brick-makers and I have found them most cooperative. They have agreed with my Ministry on the target to be set for next year and they expect to achieve it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this matter has a very important bearing on our national economy and on employment and unemployment in the country? Will he take urgent steps to see that the position is rectified?

Mr. Pannell: I do not know what my hon. and learned Friend means by the position being rectified. I took this job last October and my main preoccupation since has been to see that we get the building materials in the industry and then that we get the houses.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 15 per cent. surcharge has made building a great deal more difficult and more expensive, especially where wood is concerned?

Mr. Pannell: That is only a marginal consideration here. After all, the 15 per cent. surcharge went right across the board, and if I had wanted examples I would not have chosen these.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In this effort to increase the housebuilding programme, will my right hon. Friend consider the contribution that could be made by the rapidly developing British caravan building industry?

Mr. Pannell: I am afraid the matter of caravans is not one for me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the effect of the surcharge on building materials and especially wood is marginal, can he tell the House how much the cost is on the average house?

Mr. Pannell: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better put that question down. We will then have all the percentages worked out. I can only say that I have had a great deal of representation on this point, but none of the advocates of remission who have come before me have ever agreed.

House of Commons (Heating System)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is aware that the central heating system in the House of Commons is prejudicial to health; and if he will take steps to improve it and the system of ventilation.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have no reason for supposing that the system is in any way prejudicial to health, but I am always ready to consider suggestions for improvements.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is too much hot air in the Chamber, particularly at Question Time, since the last General Election, and that there are not enough stimulating and cooling draughts in the Chamber and elsewhere in Parliament? Will he take steps to rectify these defects?

Mr. Pannell: I think we knew of these things, but it does not come very well from my hon. and learned Friend to suggest that the system in this House is prejudicial to health. During the weekend I have been reading how he starts his day with a run across Hampstead Heath and a dive into the pond. Apart from that, my hon. and learned Friend is always in his place in this House and, all things considered, I think he is an extreme example of what a wonderful place this is to be in.

Offices, Hartlepools

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will examine the difficulties to applicants for social allowances in the Hartlepools arising from the spread of buildings dealing with pensions, insurance and National Assistance, with a view to integrating these services in a building or buildings more convenient to the public.

Mr. Boyden: The Department is planning to erect a new building to house the two offices of the National Assistance Board together on a site about a quarter of a mile from the present Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance Office.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend has indicated some progress in a field which is of some concern to the local authority in Hartlepools. May I ask him to review this matter again because in this town there is a good deal of extensive central area development, and the possibility may arise of minimising the difficulties to the public?

Mr. Boyden: The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is in good accommodation held on a long lease, and re-housing would not be justified at present


on economic grounds. As to the proposal for a new building, this is scheduled to start in 1967 and will be ready for occupation in two years. Although I would undertake to look at the point, I think one would have to be rather careful about altering plans which are going ahead and which will almost certainly relieve the problems which my hon. Friend has posed.

Palace of Westminster

Mr. Atkins: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why his Department disclosed to the Press details of the proposed future form of control of the Palace of Westminster before they were announced in the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: My Department has made no such disclosures.

Mr. Atkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that remark will be received with great satisfaction? Does it not further strengthen the argument for his making up his mind as quickly as possible and so putting an end to all speculation in the Press?

Mr. Pannell: The assumption in the Question would be considered mendacious, if that phrase is in order, but we were not responsible for putting this out. I must say that the exact conditions of the matters to which the hon. Member refers in the Question are now common knowledge to the two Front Benches. A great many people know about them and the Prime Minister has indicated that in his time, when he is ready for it, and this has been cleared everywhere, he will make a statement.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is, or appears to have been, a very detailed leak indeed? If this publication be true, could he investigate? If it be a lie, could he report it to the Press Council?

Mr. Pannell: I cannot be responsible for the wild guesses that appear in the Press from time to time. There is a difficulty for anyone placed in the position that I am in, knowing all that has taken place. The only thing I always fear is that the truth will appear. [Laughter.] It does not bother me in

the slightest if inaccurate reports appear. Nobody can say that they belong to me.

Dame Irene Ward: I would be right in assuming, would I not, that the right hon. Gentleman has associated himself with the Prime Minister's pledge or undertaking that this is a matter for Parliament and that Parliament will debate it before any final decisions are arrived at? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that pledge was repeated to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for The Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) only last Thursday?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Lady's right hon. and learned Friend knows all that is going on here and is very much in our confidence as being the prime usual channel on her side of the House. The hon. Lady must assume that I am as sensitive to the rights of the Legislature as anybody here.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

McCorquodale Committee (Report)

Mr. Sharples: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when she expects to receive the report of the McCorquodale Committee.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Margaret Herbison): It is too early yet to say: the Committee is at present hearing oral evidence.

Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Lady Lady aware of the great interest there is among the disabled in the outcome of this Report? Will she undertake that the bulk of the Report will be published as soon as possible after it has been received?

Miss Herbison: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, certainly all disabled ex-Service men are extremely interested. I can give the hon. Member an assurance that the Committee is working hard. It was constituted only in October, 1964. It has had four meetings and is having a fifth tomorrow. The Medical Sub-Committee is also meeting. Whenever the Report is ready, consideration will be given to the question of publishing it or not.

Seasonal Workers

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many seasonal workers signed the register for employment in 1964; and how many seasonal workers were refused unemployment benefit in the same year.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): I regret that the information requested is not available. The total number of claims for unemployment benefit in 1964 which were disallowed on the grounds that the additional conditions for seasonal workers were not satisfied was about 4,100.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the position of the seasonal worker who becomes unemployed? If he considers it right and proper to do so, will he make the change in respect of the seasonal workers so that it will coincide with the changed rate of unemployment benefit?

Mr. Pentland: This is a very difficult question to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have a go."] My hon. Friend will realise that the National Insurance Commissioner has held that a three-year pattern of seasonal work establishes a strong presumption that the person concerned has become a seasonal worker. It therefore follows that the three-year criterion is normally applied and by the time that the seasonal worker has been classified as such he has had three substantial off-season periods during which he has received the benefits for which the ordinary claimant qualifies.

Mr. Fell: In consideration of the fact that every previous Minister for years has made a study of this problem and the fact that the present Government do not seem to mind reviews, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman would have a review made of the whole position of the seasonal worker?

Mr. Pentland: I cannot answer specifically today that the seasonal worker's position will be reviewed in the near future, but the hon. Member will be aware that unemployment benefit is intended for the unemployed person who was effectively in full employment. It is not designed to give insurance cover

for situations where there can be no expectation of employment and consequently no insurable contingency.

Income Guarantee

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether she will now introduce the income guarantee scheme.

Miss Herbison: I cannot yet indicate how soon the Government's proposals are likely to be ready. Work on the income guarantee is proceeding as quickly as possible.

Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Lady realise that her personal failure to implement this pledge is one of the scandals of the present Administration? Does she not recollect that as far back as 1963 she herself said that this scheme had been subjected to the most detailed and rigorous technical, financial and actuarial advice and the Prime Minister himself said that it would be introduced without delay? Can the right hon. Lady say whether legislation has even been drafted at present?

Miss Herbison: It is interesting to hear of the feelings of the noble Lord. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Yes, I shall answer in my own way. The noble Lord's Government were in power for 13 years and in this matter of covering people who should be covered by an income guarantee nothing at all was done. We have been in power for five months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] In two weeks' time the retirement pensioners will receive the biggest increase that they have had since 1946. Those drawing National Assistance will also have the biggest increase ever given. I can assure the noble Lord that things are going on very quickly. I do not accept that it is a scandal that in five months I have not been able to do what his Government could not do in 13 years.

Mr. Monslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the work which she has done and the energy which she has applied to her Department will cause millions of our people to rejoice at the end of the month?

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many hon. Members opposite


said that when this national incomes scheme was introduced it would be introduced without a means test? Is that still her policy? What is to be the cost of the scheme? The present Government were in opposition for 13 years and that surely should have been enough time to work out the cost.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member will have no difficulty in finding out what we said about the scheme if he reads "New Frontiers for Social Security" where it was made perfectly clear that it would be a minimum income guarantee.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the most unusual compliment she has just received from the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who thinks that it is a personal scandal that she has not been able to do in five months what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends neglected to do in 13 years?

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Fell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to raise a matter of privilege of which I have given you notice. It concerns a leading article which appeared in the Eastern Daily Press on Saturday, 13th March.
I am sure that we should not be touchy about fair criticism by the Press, but I consider that this article is untrue and is a disgraceful libel on the whole House. I ask you to rule that, prima facie, a breach of privilege has been committed.
For accuracy, I have a copy of the newspaper in question. Would you be good enough to ask the Clerk to read the article headed, "Is the Minister aware?…".
Copy of newspaper handed in.
The CLERK (Sir BARNETT COCKS) read the article complained of, as follows:
Eastern Daily Press, March 13, 1965. Is the Minister aware?
The people who voted 630 M.P.s into Parliament should look in one afternoon and see how they are wasting the nation's time. One of the prime duties of an M.P. is to

make the Government explain itself. After prayers at 2.30, he has an hour in which to exact answers to his questions. A quick sum will show that there are so many questioners and so many Ministers to be questioned, that an hour a day is too brief a time to be frittered away. Yet it is being frittered away, day after day, in a frivolous and shameful fashion.
The questions put down on the Order Paper are usually sensible enough. They cover everything from pigs to Polaris. If they were asked and answered with brevity, there would be nothing to complain about. What makes question time infuriating is the torrent of supplementary questions to which a sensible answer can scarcely be expected. Members on both sides seem to think they have been sent to Westminster to display their wit, to practise oratory for oratory's sake, to seize every slender pretext for needling the honourable gentlemen opposite, and generally to behave in a manner that would disgrace a gaggle of fourth-formers.
'Is the Minister aware …' is the favourite opening to a question that is not a question at all, but a recital of rubbish that does not advance the business of the House one inch. Ministers rarely resist the temptation to reply in kind, and the affairs of the day disappear beneath the dust of a party brawl. Mr. Speaker knocks their heads together whenever he can. Too often his intervention, which ought to remind Members of their dignity, calls forth from them a series of trivial appeals on points of order, and the brawl is on again in earnest.
Things, the voter may sigh, were ever thus. But they were not. Old-timers can remember when the cry of "Century!" went up as the 100th question was reached. Today the House thinks itself virtuous if it gets to No. 20. The Prime Minister may manage to answer no more than two or three in his quarter of an hour. Sometimes it is his own fault: instead of brushing off the importunate like so many flies, which is what they deserve, he chooses to deliver them a homily. Wherever the blame may be judged to lie, the result is that the Order Paper is stuffed full of questions that will be ancient history before they are answered, and the hour that ought to be Parliament's finest is Parliament's most wretched.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Complaints of privilege must be heard in silence. I shall rule on the hon. Gentleman's complaint tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1965–66; DEFENCE (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1964–65; DEFENCE (ARMY) PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICE ESTIMATE, 1965–66; DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1965–66; DEFENCE (AIR) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1964–65.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1965–66

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £86,955,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

3.35 p.m.

M r. John Hay: On a point of order, Dr. King. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Votes set down by the Government for debate today under the respective Service headings do not include Army Vote 10. The history of the matter, of course, is that the Government are entitled, Department by Department, to put down those Votes which will give them the appropriate amount of money which they will need by the end of the summer to carry on the respective Armed Services. The reason that I raise this with you as a point of order, Dr. King, is not that I expect that anything can be done about it today, but so that the point may be considered.
Army Vote 10 is the Vole on which the whole of the lands services of all the three Armed Services is now carried. The difficulty in which we are here is that, if the Army does not put down Vote 10 for debate, hon. Members on both sides

of the Committee cannot raise any matter relating to Services lands, whether they be Navy lands, Army lands, or Air Force lands. This puts all hon. Members under some disability, and I hope that you will consider the point and let us know whether there is any way in which we may be able, during the course of today, to debate lands matters which are on a Vote not actually put to the Committee.

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was answering his own point of order in his earlier remarks. The question of what Votes are put down for debate today is not one for the Chair. The Chair is not empowered either to comment on them or to change them. Any representations which the hon. Gentleman seeks to make he must make not to the Chair, but to the Government benches in some other way.
If I may answer the question which the hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his remarks, it will not be in order to discuss Vote 10 (Lands) today.

Mr. Hay: I expected that that might be your view on the matter, Dr. King. If I may now turn to Navy Vote 1, the Vote which you have called, I simply say by way of preliminary that I hope that what I have said, which is said not on behalf of myself or this side only, but on behalf of all hon. Members now and in the future, will be considered by the Government. The whole Committee is put in a difficulty.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that the question of which Navy Votes, for example, come forward is one for the Government to decide on a rather complicated formula so as to get our Vote on Account. The effect of putting in Navy lands would be to omit some other aspect of the Navy Votes even if such an arrangement could be come to.

Mr. Hay: I am much obliged, but the trouble is that we cannot put in Navy lands. The trouble is that lands for the three Services, Navy and Air Force as well as the Army, are now on Army Vote 10. This means that, unless Army Vote 10 is put down year by year, we do not have an opportunity to debate lands for any of the three Services, and,


depending entirely on whether the Army needs the allocation which is represented by Vote 10, hon. Members may have no opportunity to debate the matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Is not the hon. Gentleman being rather theoretical? Does he really think that we should reach Army Vote 10 by ten o'clock tonight?

Mr. Hay: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the Order Paper. He does not even know what Votes are down. In fact, he has not put down Army Vote 10.

Mr. Reynolds: But would we reach it?

Mr. Hay: Yes, I am sure that we should, because hon. Members would wish to debate these matters. But I leave that point now and pass to Navy Vote 1.
Vote 1 is the Vote on which the whole question of naval manpower can be discussed, and much of our debate last week revolved around this very crucial matter. I ask the Minister, first, since we are principally concerned with this vote on manpower, whether he would be kind enough to confirm that the Navy is not faced with an overall and general manpower shortage. As I understand the position, it is that the Navy faces shortages of skilled manpower in certain limited areas. It would be helpful not only to the Committee, but to the country as a whole if the individual areas where shortages exist could be identified. Perhaps that could be done in the course of the reply to the debate.
One of the most important matters involved in the whole question of manpower is re-engagement. I hope that the Under-Secretary can clear up a difficulty which has existed here. Paragraph III of the White Paper says that the proportion of Royal Navy ratings who re-engage on completion of their 12-year engagements is about 52 per cent., and a contrast is made between that figure and 54 per cent. for 1963 and 65 per cent. for 1959.
But when winding up the debate on the Navy Estimates on 11th March the Under-Secretary, in col. 798, used the

figure of 40 per cent., and in answer to questions indicated that the 40 per cent. drop in the re-engagament rate was the average right through all types of engagements, whereas the 52 per cent. shown in the White Paper was only for men on 12-year engagements. If this is so, it is a somewhat alarming situation.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary—I know the difficulties about making a winding-up speech of this kind—would say whether or not the average naval re-engagement rate has fallen to 40 per cent. If so, it makes even more necessary not only the actions which the Government are already contemplating, which the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy announced in his speech last week, but also any other ideas which one can bring forward which might help.
Next, I turn to two matters which the Minister raised. First, there is the engagement bounty or grant. I am not quite sure what it is intended to call it. There are one or two questions on this. The Minister said that this was to be given to skilled and semi-skilled E.R.As., weapon and electrical artificers, radio artificers and mechanicians, electrical mechanics and radio mechanics. He then told the Committee that the E.R.As. and the mechanicians were to get a grant or bounty of £375 on re-engagement, whereas the remainder would get £750. If that is so, why is there this differentiation between the E.R.As. and the mechanicians on the one hand, and the remainder?
Secondly, the Minister told us that this grant or bounty is to be taxable. I see the fine Italian hand of the Treasury again in this. I hope that the Minister will fight hard, if there is still room for fighting on this, because if the Navy's need is urgent and if the figure of re-engagement is as low as 40 per cent. and if it is in these specialist categories, as I suspect, that the trouble lies, I wonder whether these amounts subject to tax will produce the results for which Ministers hope. I hope that we can have a little more information about that.
I would ask the Minister of State also to clear up what seemed to be an ambiguity in his announcement. I refer to what he said on 11th March, in col. 654 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
We propose that ratings in these categories"—


I have just mentioned what they are—
who sign on before their first engagement of nine or 12 years for 22 years' service shall be paid a taxable re-engagement grant."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 654.]
It seemed to me a little ambiguous, a bit of a contradiction in terms, that a man should sign on before his nine or 12-year engagement for 22 years. Perhaps the Minister will clear this up. Perhaps he will do it later, at the end of the debate, rather than by an interjection now. If there is a misunderstanding or ambiguity, I should be glad if he could clear it up.

Mr. Mayhew: It might be easier—there is nothing between us—if I tried to explain it now. As things stand a man does not have to wait until his nine years are up before signing again for 22 years for pension. This is a good thing. He makes up his mind, say, when seven years have gone that he will re-engage at the end of nine years. We want to encourage that. So what we say is that when a man signs on for 22 years when he is, say, at seven years we will pay him 10 per cent. of his re-engagement bounty, and then he gets the rest of the bounty at the nine-year period.

Mr. Hay: I am very much obliged, and I am sure that the whole Committee is. That clears the point up.
Another matter is the question of the house purchase scheme, which was announced last week. Here I return to the charge. I hope that over the weekend the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of thinking again about the question of delay. The hon. Gentleman told us last week that the house purchase scheme for ratings who re-engage is to be delayed until such time as a similar scheme for the Civil Service is cut and dried. I urged in my speech that there should be no delay about this, that the Navy's needs are urgent and should take precedence, if necessary, over the Civil Service. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us in a little more detail exactly why the delay is necessary and the details of the scheme and what has happened in the Civil Service that requires everybody else to mark time until it gets to the appropriate point.

I turn to the more general aspects of manpower. I would ask whether all the other possibilities of dealing with naval manpower shortage have been fully examined. There is one aspect, in particular, that I should like to raise. The Under-Secretary and I and many other hon. Members served in the Navy during the war and recollect very well the excellent—indeed, splendid—service that was given by the W.R.N.S. and how customary it was to see a W.R.N.S., who had apparently had quite a little training, able to handle the most complicated machinery and repair the most complicated equipment.
I wonder whether Ministers have considered making better use of W.R.N.S. to take the place of some of the trained qualified men in the shortage categories for maintenance of equipment on shore and possibly to go out to ships when they come in for refitting. One of the big problems in regard to the shortage categories is the maintenance of the equipment. I wonder whether all the various ingenious possibilities which I am sure exist for the use of W.R.N.S., with special training perhaps, have been fully explored. I should be grateful if that point could be borne in mind.
There is also, clearly, a need for an improved recruitment rate for the Wrens. Paragraph 122 of the White Paper gives us the details about W.R.N.S. recruitment. It says that there is an authorised number of about 3,000 W.R.N.S. ratings and that 1,000 enrolments are needed each year. It tells us that the minimum age has now been lowered to 17. I hope that the Government will give thought to this point. I think it possible that W.R.N.S. might make a much larger contribution in helping the Navy in this field. If I might ride a little hobby horse of mine, I hope that those who are responsible for it will again look at the possibility of improving the W.R.N.S. uniform.
It has always seemed to me that the W.R.N.S. uniform was something of a disincentive to girls to join the W.R.N.S. I have always felt that the heavy serge from which their uniforms are made and their somewhat unattractive caps must act as a disincentive. I do not suggest that this should be taken as a precedent, but I ask Ministers to look at some of the excellent results that have been obtained by some of the airlines in finding


suitable and attractive uniforms for the stewardesses. I am not suggesting that the W.R.N.S. should look like airline hostesses—that is not my intention. All I am saying is that I hope very much that, in considering the question of W.R.N.S. uniforms, Ministers will consider the experiments which have been carried out by the civil airlines, because some remarkable results have been obtained.

Commander Harry Pursey: Is not recruiting for the W.R.N.S. already at a high rate? If so, how can the hon. Gentleman argue that uniform is a disincentive? I am not arguing whether it is or not. The hon. Gentleman then made the point about dressing them up as airline hostesses.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: Very well. He drew attention to the uniforms of airline hostesses. Is not that one of the reasons why the marriage rate is very high among airline hostesses? Consequently, if we were to dress up the W.R.N.S. as platinum blondes, we would lose them almost as soon as we got them.

Mr. Hay: I suppose that if the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member could be translated into the jargon, he would say that my suggestion was likely to be counter-productive. In answer to his first point, he has misunderstood. I am saying that having regard to the shortages in the various skilled categories that exist in the Navy for men, there might well be a case for trying to recruit more W.R.N.S. and training them to carry out some at least of the duties that these skilled men, who are so scarce, at present carry out. That is all I am saying. For the rest, I must leave the hon. and gallant Member to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what I have said.
I turn next to aircrew. We touched upon this last week, but I should like to ask the Government, with reference to paragraph 97 of the White Paper, whether they had been able to ascertain exactly why a large number of aircrew officers on the Supplementary List are exercising their option to leave the Service at the various break points during their commission. What investigations have been carried out to find why these

officers are taking this action? If I recollect aright, investigations were started during the time when I was at the Ministry. I should like to know what progress has been made and what the results are.
I turn from individual shortages to the question of the General Service commission. Last year, a number of alterations were made to this. The length of the commission was increased to two and a half years to fit in with the refit cycle, but there was the qualification that the maximum continuous period which a man should serve overseas should be kept, as far as humanly possible, to 12 months. At the same time, we adopted a new system of trying to recommission ships in stages grouped around the refit, because it is no longer realistic to change the whole of a ship's company at one time.
I should like to know from the Under-Secretary how the change in the General Service commission has been received throughout the Fleet. I know that there was a certain amount of anxiety on the part of the old Board of Admiralty when we considered this matter, but I should like to know whether it is working well and whether the explanations have now been fully understood and received in the Fleet.
Whilst on this subject, I might, perhaps, make a further plea, if it is necessary, that much further use should be made of air trooping flights to enable ships to recommission abroad, particularly in the Far East. A certain amount of work of that kind has been done, but I believe that much more could be done and I hope very much that the point is in the mind of the Ministers.
Finally, I turn to the question of Polaris. We have not yet heard from the Government during our debates the reasons which have caused them to decide on a four-boat rather than a five-boat fleet for Polaris. I should like to know whether the decision has been taken because of manpower difficulties. Much as I should like to range over the whole of this field, I have to bear in mind that we are discussing Vote 1, which relates to the pay and allowances, and so on, of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I should, however, like to ask that question to begin with.
It would seem that possibly manpower has played a potent part in the decision. Certainly, there is little reason to imagine that on grounds of effectiveness a four-boat Polaris fleet—I welcome the arrival of the Secretary of State for Defence at an appropriate moment. For his benefit, I will tell him that I was asking whether the reason for the reduction of the Polaris fleet from five boats to four is basically manpower. I can understand that manpower may have an important part to play, but we have wondered whether the decision was one of money, whether it was because the party opposite have come to different strategic ideas than those which governed our decision to have a five-boat fleet, or whether it was something else.
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister, nor even the Under-Secretary, in the debates last week answered question which I put about a four-or five-boat fleet. I hope that—strictly in the context of manpower, of course, to keep ourselves in order—we can have an explanation of this point.
Although we welcome the decision to carry on with the Polaris programme, it looks like a rather dirty carbon copy of Conservative policy. We would prefer the Government to have kept to what we originally planned.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The hon. Gentleman's Government originally planned to have four Polaris vessels.

Mr. Hay: That is true. Then, having planned the whole thing—and the Government are very keen on reviews—we came to the conclusion, for the reasons which I gave last week, that a five-boat fleet was infinitely preferable. I should like to know why there has been a change and why this retrograde step has been taken. Is it due to manpower?
I come next to the training of Polaris crews. Can the Under-Secretary tell us how the training of these crews is going on? The Minister has been in America and has seen the training of crews at Dam Neck, which I had the opportunity to see some time ago. I should like to know how the training of the first crews is proceeding and what arrangements are in prospect for the training of the subsequent crews when the first two crews are

trained in America. Is the programme of building for our training at Faslane continuing? Are there any checks or difficulties? The Committee would be glad to know.
I should like to make one final point about Polaris with particular reference to the base at Faslane. I hope that Ministers have hoisted in the idea that it is essential, if the Polaris fleet is to operate successfully and do the job for which it is provided, that the men who make up the crews of each of these submarines should have peace of mind. This was certainly very much in our minds when we made the original plans.
Arrangements have to be made at the base for the housing and welfare of the men's families, the education of their children and medical attention for them, such as to reach a very high degree so that the men who are at sea for, perhaps, a month or even more can be relieved as far as possible of the anxiety which they would otherwise have, because this is—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Hay: May I finish the sentence—a very important thing, as, I am sure, the Under-Secretary has already been advised.

Mr. John Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that people who live in the neighbourhood of Faslane should have peace of mind, too?

Mr. Hay: As far as I know, they will have, as will all the people in this country once the party opposite has fully endorsed and carried into action the Polaris programme.

The Chairman: I have been listening to the hon. Member very carefully. He must keep to the narrow point that he has raised.

Mr. Hay: I was obviously led astray by one who has experience in doing that.
However, that is really all I want to say about Polaris.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have followed the hon. Member with great interest. He was asking about training facilities for the manpower for the Polaris submarine. Could he explain the statement he made when he was Minister? He forgot about the training school.

Mr. Hay: No. I do not think that I did. Offhand, I do not remember everything I said in my speech on the Navy Estimates last year, but as one who had some responsibility for this aspect of the programme—and I see that the Under-Secretary of State has fitted into the same position—it was one of the things very much in my mind.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman did not tell us.

Mr. Hay: Maybe. Perhaps I was not asked.
We would welcome further information from Ministers about the manpower situation, which does not appear too good, but I hope that at the same time they will be able to assure us that the essential work which the Fleet is doing now is not jeopardised or damaged to a dangerous degree by these shortages. Any information we can have about manpower shortages and the actions the Government intend to put them right will be very much welcomed by this side of the Committee.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was just looking round to find out whether there were any reinforcements for me coming up from behind. I should like to follow up the question about manpower to be trained for the Polaris submarine. I do so because I took part in an Adjournment debate which the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) will remember.
When the Polaris submarine base was first announced in the House of Commons it was said that it would cost between £20 million and £25 million. I thought that this was a considerable amount of public money. I succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate and in it I asked what, I thought, were very pertinent questions, which the hon. Member for Henley did his best to answer. Then, when the present Government came in, and we asked about the costs of training facilities for this manpower, the figure had gone up from £25 million to £45 million.
When an amount of that kind, and an increase of that kind, which is a considerable sum, is to be spent we should have an opportunity of debating it, so I continued my inquiries about the £45

million. The hon. Gentleman said that he had it very much in mind, but it is not what is in the hon. Member's mind which should interest the Committee, but what we are to be asked to budget for. We know that the cost of these training facilities for the future manpower amounts to £10 million more than we were informed of. It is a considerable amount.
The present Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy referred to the matter. He interrupted my speech on the Estimates, and I want to do both him and the Admiralty full justice by repeating what he said:
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish unwittingly to mislead the Committee about the two figures £25 million and £45 million. The £25 million does not include, for example, to take only one item, the training school, because at that time it had not been decided to put the training school at Faslane. That accounts for £9 million of the difference. The other matters are equally decisions taken after the figure of £25 million was given and not pure escalation, although I do not say that is no element of escalation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 708.]
In this we are told that, in addition to the cost of the base, there is £9 million that we were not told about at all. It was only by acting as an amateur Sherlock Holmes on these Estimates that I discovered this at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I represent the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to know how the manpower is to be trained and I should like to know something more about this £9 million and the training school. A training school which costs £9 million is an expensive item, nearly the cost of a Scottish university, certainly the cost of quite a number of large secondary schools, which, we are told, we cannot afford.
I should like to know what will happen to the present submarine crews. What is to happen to them? Are they to be sent for refresher courses to Faslane? Would my hon. Friend tell us what a refresher course is likley to consist of? I understand—I am speaking purely as a layman in this matter—that the ordinary manpower of the ordinary submarine will not be qualified to undertake duties in a Polaris submarine.
Is this expensive establishment to take our technologists and teachers? Are we to have teachers and technologists drawn


from the educational system in Scotland? Because I can assure him that if he is to recruit mathematicians and scientists and technologists, and potential recruits to teaching, who are so badly needed in the technical colleges in the west of Scotland, there will be an outcry from everybody interested in education in Scotland.
I feel alarmed when I see an item of expenditure increasing by £10 million—for the training school, which was in the Minister's mind, but was not revealed to the House of Commons. I therefore wonder whether there are any more £10 million schemes in the Minister's mind which have not been revealed to the House. After all, we have to find the money. I make the prophecy now that the estimated cost for this training school will not be enough by the time it has been completed in 1968. I suggest that here there is, and will be, escalation and I look with alarm at the possibility of this large expenditure mounting and mounting till by the time the first Polaris submarine sails from the Gare Loch—when, probably, it will be obsolete in any case—we shall have incurred an enormous amount of public expenditure.
I believe I was doing the right thing in putting up this red light—or red warning light, or whatever it is that they call it in the Navy. This activity on the Gare Loch will be watched very carefully by everybody interested in manpower of all kinds in the west of Scotland, because we need manpower for our construction industries, and we need money for houses and schools and hospitals.
We are very jealous indeed about this money and this manpower being taken away for what we believe is likely to be an expensive venture which will not result in contributing anything to our national economy.

4.10 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I wish to refer particularly to Subhead C, which refers to other ranks of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. Why has there been a cut of £19,000, particularly in view of the fact that this Service is doing excellent work at present in co-ordinating

not only the Services, but civilians in their hospitals, to which I shall refer on another Vote?
The W.R.N.S. have also done a first-class job, and they do not seem to have any difficulty in recruiting personnel, but why should not they have other jobs in shore establishments, such as cooks, stewards, and chauffeurs? At the moment these jobs are performed by men. Ministers have women chauffeurs, and I am sure that they appreciate that they are excellent drivers. I think that women could be used in many more clerical jobs in shore establishments.
I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) said the other day about H.M.S. "Dauntless". I do not understand why it is at Burghfield. I think that it would be better if it were nearer a naval establishment, so that the personnel there could get the right atmosphere at the time of their recruitment.
I should also like to know whether it would be possible to recruit W.R.N.S. from the age of 16, which is the normal age for girls who are not going to university to leave school. These are the people who could come into the Service as cooks, chauffeurs, clerical workers and so on. This gap between 16 and 17 is very difficult to fill, and the opportunity to enlist in the W.R.N.S. would be a great help.
I note that under Subhead D (6) there is to be a cut of £25,000. It is very difficult to understand the purpose of this Vote, and perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it.
I should like to di0scuss whether the Minister will have too much money to pay the number of personnel that he may have in the Services. I propose to write to the Minister concerning several points of recruiting.
I should like next to deal with the difficulties experienced by wives, a topic not discussed during the Estimates debate. It has to be realised that since the war there has been an increase of2½ per cent. in the number of teen-age wives, and there is a difficulty about centralised drafting. I realise the difficulties in the W.R.N.S. and that it may not be possible to alter the situation, but the Minister must realise that in the old


days people used to be allocated to one area. They were at Devonport, Portsmouth, or Chatham, and they had their relatives in the neighbourhood. That is not so now, and this causes great difficulty for many of these young wives.
One wife whom I met recently told me that she had had 15 major moves in 23 years. This makes for a great deal of unsettlement in the family itself, and I should like the Minister to consider more carefully this question of drafting. I am told that one of the difficulties is that wives do not know for how long their husbands may be away. Even if they could be given some estimate of the length of separation, it would be a great asset.
The other difficulty is that when a husband is in the United Kingdom he may be in Scotland while his wife may be in Devonport, or Portsmouth, and yet his service is regarded as shore service. The members of the family may be no nearer to each other than if the husband were on a ship at sea, or in Singapore. This central drafting causes great difficulties, and the loans for houses scheme will not help unless the wives know the ports to which their husbands are likely to return. Unless they have this information, they have no idea where to settle.
I deal next with re-engagement. There seem to be many inequalities. If an E.R.A. wishes to re-engage, he gets a bonus of £375. If a C.P.O. wants to re-engage, he gets £100, if he is going to H.M.S. "Sultan" for three months to become an E.R.A. The difference between £375 and £100 seems rather too much. If a man is willing to get himself qualified for a higher grade, he should be paid the same re-engagement sum as the E.R.A. himself.
I propose now to discuss the postal services. I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, because I understand that postal services for the Navy have been taken over by the Army. Since this has happened there has been great dissatisfaction with the service. Many delays have occurred in the post. I have already done battle with the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will take up this extremely important matter because, if husbands and wives are parted, it is a great asset if they are able to communciate with each other as rapidly as possible.
Only recently a wife was taken ill. She wrote to her husband to tell him about it. The letter never arrived, and eventually the husband was informed by cable of his wife's illness. This is a great disadvantage. I will give the hon. Gentleman full details in writing, and I hope that he will take this matter seriously, because postal delays are a major issue.
During the debate on Thursday we talked about an allowance for men when they went to sea. I hope that the Minister will not consider this at all. After all, if a man joins the Navy, he is expected to go to sea. What is needed is a separation allowance for the wife. Many wives have two, three, or even four children, and they need an occasional day off. If they could afford to pay a home help, or someone else, to look after their children while they went out, or perhaps even while they went to visit their husbands in Scotland this would be a tremendous advantage to them. Please do not pay men for extra service at sea. If help is to be given, the money should be given to the wife, because if it is given to the husband the chances are that the wife will not benefit at all.
For many years I have pleaded for unfurnished accommodation to be provided in naval quarters. Many people, when they are in naval accommodation, have to pay for their furniture to be stored. Time and again I have been told that the difficulty about providing unfurnished accommodation is that the furniture installed by the occupants leaves marks on the walls, but surely if a family has been in a house for, say, three years, the house needs redecorating anyway. The provision of unfurnished accommodation would be a great asset, because the occupants would not only avoid having to pay for their furniture to be stored, but would be able to display their own ornaments and use their own furniture, rather than use that provided by the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
One of the factors against recruiting is the number of chores which have to be done in the Navy. For years I fought for a zip fastener on the jumper and a plastic cap. Now I suggest that we should provide a drip-dry collar. If a lovely crease is required, this can be put in by machine. It is an unnecessary chore for the ordinary sailor to have to iron these


collars. If he were provided with a drip-dry collar, there would be one less chore for him to do.

Commander Pursey: Will not the hon. Lady take up the far more important point—especially from a woman's point of view—of how to prevent the blue of the collar running into the three rows of white tape? If she can find an answer to that, she will make a fortune.

Dame Joan Vickers: As I understand it, drip-dry material does not run from one colour into another. I am sure that this would solve the hon. and gallant Member's problem. It would be an additional asset.
I feel that we ought to increase the number of Commonwealth people in our Royal Navy. Goans used to cook in the galleys, and we also had Hong Kong Chinese. I know that many people in the West Indies, as well as in other parts of the Commonwealth, would like to enter the Navy, and I hope that further recruitment will be made from among them. I have been to various Commonwealth territories and I know that many people would come in from them. When I was in Nigeria many people volunteered for the Nigerian Navy, but they could not all be accepted.
I now turn to the question of sea cadets. Their numbers are falling. One of the difficulties is that they do not have enough opportunities of going to sea. I have a Question down to the Minister on this subject—

The Chairman: I am distressed at having to interrupt the hon. Lady, but sea cadets come under Vote 2.

Dame Joan Vickers: I was merely mentioning them as part of the problem of recruitment. That is the only reason I referred to them. The more young people we can get into the sea cadets the more are likely to join the Navy later.
But if we are to get more recruits it is absolutely essential that we provide the right home conditions. Most people in the Navy marry at an early age in these days, and unless we can obtain the co-operation of the wives and provide proper living conditions for them and their families we shall not be able to look forward to better recruiting figures in the future.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have listened very patiently and keenly to what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has had to say, especially about the Women's Royal Naval Service. When we are dealing with Vote 1 it is proper to give specific attention to matters dealing with people. The other day when we were debating Vote A there was a temptation to deviate somewhat, and to go into questions of policy. On Vote 1, however, we are bound to consider manpower, and particularly Royal Navy personnel.
We must examine this part of the Estimates to see whether or not we are writing into it provisions which will, first, provide adequately for the needs of the moment and, secondly, produce incentives for recruiting in the right places and deal with difficulties and shortages in various parts of the Service. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred particularly to the possibility of the W.R.N.S. filling some of the men's vacancies.
I want to deal particularly with the question of overseas allowances and education allowances, which are referred to in Vote 1, Subhead B, (3) and (4), in respect of officers, and Subhead D, (3) and (4), in respect of ratings and other ranks. During the past two years there has been an average increase of about 2,000 in the Royal Navy establishment. In the total provision for the Services there has been allowance for an increase of 1,000 men—from 103,000 to 104,000.
It is, therefore, surprising to find that under the two allowances that I have mentioned there has been only an 8 per cent. increase in respect of officers and an 18 per cent. increase in respect of ratings. When we were discussing the Royal Air Force the other day I mentioned the question of allowances, and in this case, too, we should have an explanation from the Minister about them. I am not satisfied that they are adequate.
If we want to build up the strength of our naval forces, and if there are signs that recruitment is improving considerably, we should have something far better than this in the Estimates. I am mainly perturbed about education. In the total Estimates we have an increase of £56½ million, but under the heading of education we have the very small amount of


£20,000 for officers. A movement from £495,000 to £475,000 is hardly the kind of increase which is likely to satisfy me, without some sort of explanation—

Mr. Hay: Has not the hon. Member got it the wrong way round? Was it not £495,000 last year as compared to £475,000 this; in other words, a reduction, and not an increase, of £20,000?

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes. That was an error on my part. It is certainly a decrease. It is a 4 per cent. decrease. This somewhat alarms me.
For ratings, the education allowance has remained stationary at £40,000. This does not seem to be right for a vital part of the Service which involves the interests of families of naval personnel. I hope that the Minister will indicate what attention has been paid to this matter.
Considering the total Estimates of £544 million as a background to the fact that we have an increase in Vote 1 of only £2,833,000, our provision for education and overseas allowances appear meagre in the extreme. As a new Member I respectfully ask the Committee to bear with me on this point when I appeal to the Minister to explain this situation. I do this purely out of concern for personnel.

Mr. Ian Fraser: I want to relate my remarks to Vote 9, Subheads A and B—

The Chairman: Order. We shall be discussing Vote 9 later. The hon. Member will have his chance when we reach it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I do not wish to keep the Committee for more than a few moments, because I think that there will be matters of greater interest arising on later Votes. I wish to refer briefly to the problem of recruiting and re-engagement. It has been discussed at some length during earlier stages of the debates on the Estimates. To me, it is rather disappointing to find that the Navy which, in the days not long ago, made the best showing in both these respects, is now making the worst showing compared with the other two Services. I wonder whether the explanation to which we have listened represents the whole story, of whether the matter goes a little further.
One explanation dealt with in the White Paper refers to the increased proportion of the Fleet now in the Far East. We

know that policy is to continue and it may well be that there is something in that explanation. I cannot help wondering whether it may have something to do with the virtual abandonment of the old idea of manning ports. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter further. For a long time it was much easier to recruit for the Royal Navy than it is today. Explanations about married quarters, which only started to be built after the last war, do not provide a very good reason, in my opinion.
I wish to inquire—if it will not embarrass the Minister—about the extent to which Polaris and the hunter-killer programmes are already making calls on manpower. How much of a problem arises from this and how much is the situation due to other manning problems?
According to Subhead B(2) there has been quite a sharp increase, amounting to £45,000 in the lodging and London allowances. I hope that does not mean that there are more people in London than there used to be.
Subhead Z, relating to appropriations in aid, indicates, I am glad to see, that there is £228,000 more coming in than before. By the same token it means that more naval manpower is being lent. As I understand Subhead (1) it means that we have considerably more people on loan to other Governments and I should like an explanation of that. Does it mean that they are on loan to new self-governing territories, or what is the explanation?
When we come to the other receipts there is not much difference in the figures and yet we find, looking through the Defence White Paper, that stress is laid on the extent to which overseas officers, and indeed ratings as well, are taking part in our British Naval courses. Presumably there will be a higher proportion of these officers. I wonder whether they are being charged with the expense of the courses. If the courses are being taken up by these people I wonder whether it is right to go on giving free instruction, if that is a correct deduction to make from Subhead Z(3). Perhaps I may be told something about that.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I should like the Minister to explain Subhead C. It appears to me that there are four categories relating to the pay of ratings. Subhead A(1) deals


with the pay of naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks. The amount has been increased from £49,581,000 to £50,330,000. I should like to know why that is. Either there are more ratings, or they are being paid more, and I do not think that either of those reasons is correct.
I recollect that the last pay increase for the Royal Navy came into force on 1st April, 1964. For the actual numbers to be paid I look, as I am recommended to do by the Estimates, to Appendix II, Table II, for the average numbers borne during 1964–65 and 1965–66. If the Minister will do the same, and he will do a little arithmetic, I think that he will agree that it is estimated there are fewer naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks, according to his own figures, this year than last.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) indicated dissent.

Mr. Atkins: I see that the Minister shakes his head, but perhaps he would add up the figures. I have added them up and it appears to me that there are fewer—not many fewer, but certainly some fewer—ratings and Royal Marine other ranks this year than last year. If that is so, why should we pay them more?
My second question has been raised in relation to the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, where the reverse applies. More nursing auxiliaries are to be paid a great deal less. This does not make sense to me. The figures for the W.R.N.S. appear to work the right way round. There are more ratings to be paid slightly more. I should like the Minister to explain. If the answer is that National Insurance contributions have increased, it would appear that they have gone up to nearly 30 per cent. Why should that be? It is in respect of slightly fewer ratings. I know that the Government put up National Insurance contributions recently, but not, I think, to as much as that.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why we are being asked to pay these sums of money which do not appear, on the face of it, to accord with the facts.

4.36 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I apologise for missing the opening part of the debate, which was unavoidable. I hope that the point which I wish to make has not already been raised. In the Defence White Paper we were given a total Estimate and there was a slightly sinister paragraph at the end to the effect that Supplementary Estimates referring to aircraft would be presented in due course. When we look at Vote 1 we realise that it is unrealistic, because we know very well that in due course a Supplementary Estimate will be produced, as this is the year when the biennial review of the pay of the Services take place. To avoid having to rise again when Votes 4 and 5 are discussed, may I mention, in passing, that this affects those Votes, also?
I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any calculations have been made about what the wages and salaries bill—which represents the greater part of the Estimates—will be and the Supplementary Estimates which will be presented during the year as a result of the biennial review.

4.38 p.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I wish to make two points in connection with the serious shortage of flying personnel, which is mentioned with some force in paragraph 97 of the White Paper, and which was referred to in a number of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee during the debate last Thursday.
I note that in Vote 1, Subhead B (5), other allowances and grants have gone up by £43,000 this year. I wish to ask what, if any, proportion of that total is covered by flying allowances, that is specific—what we would have called in the old days non-substantive—allowances paid to flying personnel. I believe that a scheme of non-substantive pay in direct proportion to the lack of recruits, or shall we say lack of re-engagers, among flying officers will have to be part of the Minister's programme if we are to rectify this rather grave shortage.
I should like to ask one further short question. Do Subheads A and C include the pay of cross-posted officers from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy? I understand that, at the moment, there


is a very small number of cross-postings between Services—I believe mainly among flying personnel. If the integration of the Services is to mean anything at all, would it not be right that, when we reach a situation such as we have in this year's White Paper, by which one Service, in this case the Navy, is very short of flying personnel, and another Service, the Royal Air Force, is fairly well-off—I would not say that it is flush, but it is in a much better position—the cross-posting which already takes place should not be increased disproportionately, so that the Royal Navy gets an extra number of R.A.F. personnel?
I put these two suggestions as one way, perhaps, of immediately alleviating this increasingly serious situation.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: So far as one of the questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) is concerned, I shall have to say that I shall write to him about it. That is the question of the flying allowance. I do not know the answer. That must apply to some of the other detailed questions which have been put during this debate. I will answer as many as I can as fully as I can, but where I cannot do so I promise hon. Members that I shall write to them in detail, and accurately, at the earliest possible moment.
The shortages which are afflicting some parts of the Services at present are serious, but not fatal. I am, unhappily, afraid that I was right in the debate last Thursday in the average figure of re-engagement which I gave. It is disturbing. It is an average of the two main types of re-engagement, and it is exactly as I have stated. It makes it all the more necessary for us to do everything we can, by these re-engagement bounties and other means, to try to remedy a situation which is disturbing.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked whether we could give a little more information about where the shortages are most felt. I mentioned a number in my speech on Thursday, and so did my right hon. Friend, but here are one or two more. Electrical artificers, for example, are at present running at a shortage of about 15 per cent. The same 15 per cent. shortage applies also to radio

artificers and to leading radio mechanics. There are lesser shortages of 5 per cent. for ordnance and weapon artificers. and so on. This is a very uneven position. S.B.A.s, I believe, are in the worst position of all at present. There is a very high degree of shortage there.
That is one of the reasons why we propose to have variations in the amount of re-engagement bounties which we pay. It seems sensible to pay more where the shortages are more acute—to use it as a sort of regulator. I think that that is far and away the best way of doing it. I was, at one stage—

Mr. Hay: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say that I understood, of course, that that might be the reason, but if we start introducing a system of differentiation in payments of this kind we may well create a very undesirable situation. Two men—in different categories, it is true—might be working practically side by side, one knowing that his re-engagement pay or bounty or grant will be a certain amount, and the other knowing that his re-engagement grant may be virtually double that amount. I suggest that that is something which could well cause trouble. I hope that Ministers will look at this again.

Mr. Mallalieu: I cannot pretend that I am entirely happy about the arrangement, but, at the moment, this seems the most effective way to use the money which we will have available. Of course, grants for housing will be the same for everyone. This variation will only apply to the re-engagement bounty. I am not very happy about it. We shall certainly watch it extremely carefully.
I was very glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was called. I was distressed that she was not called to speak on Thursday, after having waited so long. She and the hon. Member for Henley raised various matters connected with the W.R.N.S. I was beginning to get a little disturbed about what sort of service we were being asked to run, and whether we were being asked to make them into dazzling blondes. The serious point was, could we not make greater use of the W.R.N.S. in the Service than we do at present. There are two difficulties, one of which is conclusive. One difficulty is that we have to get a ratio of shore to


sea complementing, so that people who have done their sea time can have a shore billet. It would be difficult to allot many more shore billets to W.R.N.S.
There is a much more serious problem. The average time which a W.R.N.S. spends in the Service is about three years. The length of time it takes to train people in to some of these skilled categories is five years. It would, therefore, mean that, just when they were three-fifths of their way through their training, they would get married and leave. That would obviously be absurd.

Commander Pursey: We want to get this clear and apply some common sense to it. This is not a question of training W.R.N.S. up to the level of artificers. It is simply a question of their being "tiffys' mates" to carry the tools and help the expert and do the secondary work. We would not want that amount of time simply to train a "tiffy's mate".

Mr. Mallalieu: Of course not, but I did not think that that was the point. I thought that it was being said that they did such wonderful work during the war, and learned skills, that they should be called upon to replace more of the higher skilled men, of whom, we were disturbed—

Dame Joan Vickers: It was not really the replacement of higher skilled men in those establishments which I had in mind. Men are stewards and cooks, and so on, and many officers have men drivers. Surely it would not take a long time to teach a woman to wait at table or to drive a car.

Mr. Mallalieu: It would be comparatively easy, but, even for stewards, the question of a shoreward billet arises from time to time. We can do something on these lines, but I would not hold out hopes that there would be any great advance. We are trying out something in a small way by having W.R.N.S. on various jobs in air traffic control.
On the question of the W.R.N.S. uniform, I rather agree about the hat. It is not particularly attractive. But the rest of the uniform is absolutely smashing. I think that they look far and away the best of all the three Services. We might have a look at what could be done about the hat, or cap, or whatever it is called.
On the question of the assisted house purchase scheme, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Henley say that we should get on with this as soon as possible and without delay. Of course, we do not want to delay a second longer than we have to, but there are difficulties now that the Admiralty is no longer the great independent Department it used to be in years gone by, able to do things when and how it wanted. We are now in line with other Services, including the Civil Service, and there is still serious difficulty in getting the house purchase scheme going quickly. We shall press on as best we can.

Mr. Hay: Will the hon. Member take it from me, from experience, that if the Opposition are continually pressing Ministers it often spurs them on?

Mr. Mallalieu: We shall welcome pressure on that subject.
I was asked about the shortage of flying officers and flying crew and why so many leave at their break point. We have had the benefit of the report of the investigation into all the reasons for re-engagement which was set in motion under the previous Administration, and we have found it an extremely helpful report. Over and over again, the main reason for not re-engaging in all categories has been separation.
But there are other reasons, too, for flying crew. It is a very tough life, and they are being worked extremely hard at present. When they make comparisons between their life and life in the R.A.F. or the life of a civilian pilot, they are bound to see that they are at some disadvantage. We must see what we can do to improve their lot. If we cannot do it in the physical part of the job, we ought to be able to do it in cash and to make some sort of compensation for it. We shall certainly look at the matter.
I do not know how far I can go on this Vote into the subject of Polaris. It was not so much manpower which made us reach our decision about the fifth Polaris. It was partly that we had no intention of running an independent nuclear deterrent, but only to make a contribution to the A.N.F. There was also the question of the saving of cash which would result. I do not think that the saving in manpower is very considerable.

Mr. Hay: Suppose A.N.F. fails? What will be done then? Do we still have it?

Mr. Mallalieu: I have enough questions to answer about things which are happening now without dealing with hypothetical things for the future, which I shall leave to another time, if it arises.
I was asked about the changes in the General Service commission. I was asked how the scheme had been received. The hon. Member can probably guess: not very well, because it obviously means a slight increase in the period of separation. But it had to be done to get more work out of the ship, for operational reasons. The only way was to lengthen the General Service commission. As far as I know, the matelot fully understands the technical reasons for it, accepts it but does not like it very much.
The next question concerned centralised drafting. That has come in for quite a bit of pasting from time to time. There are still problems about drafting, but there has been an improvement during the last five years, since we have had centralised drafting. It has evened out the turbulence between one port and another, although it has not removed it altogether. On the whole, I believe that it has worked distinctly better than the old scheme, but we are watching it the whole time, trying to diminish the turbulence as much as we possibly can.

Dame Joan Vickers: I do not think that it has worked out better than the old scheme from the point of view of the wives. Previously, they were in their own home town, where they had their mothers to help them with their children. Now they may be anywhere. I understand the hon. Member's difficulties, but I hope that he will try to see what he can do to look at the addresses of these people and to ensure that they are sent to the right places.

Mr. Mallalieu: I assure the hon. Lady that that is done as far as possible. The drafting people are very much alive to this. I have seen for myself and I recognise the difficulties which occur when what was called a Devonport ship arrives in Portsmouth and there is a two-way traffic between the two at weekends. It is nonsense, and we try to avoid it as far as possible, but it is a very difficult problem.
We are watching it carefully and with the utmost sympathy and trying to make certain that there is no unnecessary turbulence.
There were many detailed questions, one or two of which I will not be able to answer at once, although I will reply to them by letter at the earliest possible moment. There were one or two things which the hon. Member said looked rather peculiar in the figures. But I do not think that the comments made by hon. Members are sound, because there are more—how we work it out I do not know—in the Service this year than there were last year, and not fewer. I will check the mathematics.

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Member looks at page 47 he will see that there are fewer than in the previous year. It gives the average numbers of Service personnel by rank. Last year, there were 77,460 ratings in the Royal Navy and this year there are 76,805 ratings. Last year, there were 8,800 ranks in the Royal Marines and this year there are 9,135. If the hon. Member adds the two together he will see that there are fewer this year than there were last year. They are his own figures.

Mr. Mallalieu: I will look at that in the course of answering another point.
There seemed to be an anomaly about Queen Alexandra's Royal Nursing Service. At the moment, there is a shortage of nurses serving with the Fleet—that is to say, outside hospitals—and they are provided for under Vote 5. To remedy that shortage we are increasing the number of recruits we carry under Vote 1. There is thus a drop in the amount allowed on Vote 5 and an increase in the amount allowed on Vote 1—or the other way round.

Dame Joan Vickers: It is the other way round.

Mr. Mallalieu: The point is that there is a substantial increase in the intake at present to make up for the shortage of those serving with the Fleet, and this accounts for the drop in the Vote.
I do not know whether there were any other items of major importance raised during the debate. I have run quickly through some of the comparatively small points. For the rest, I will


reply in writing and in detail to all the points which have been raised and which I have not covered.

Dame Joan Vickers: Can the hon. Member give me an explanation about Subhead D(6)? I do not understand what that covers at all.

Mr. Mallalieu: That is under the heading, "Allowances of Ratings and Other Ranks". I have seen an explanation of that point, but I do not think I have it in my papers. May I give an explanation in writing?

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I raised with the Minister the other day the question of the commutation of pensions and the difficulty which people having in buying a house.

The Chairman: Order.

Brigadier Clarke: I should be grateful for a reply.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and gallant Member must sit down while the Chairman is standing. The question of pensions will arise on a later Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £86,955,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

Vote 4.—Research and Development and Other Scientific Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £27,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hay: This Vote covers a very wide sphere indeed, and I wish to ask some specific questions on it. I draw attention to Subhead C, which relates to the hydrographic services and the pay and allowances of the Naval Hydro-graphic Department. This inevitably raises the whole question of oceanography.
I would like to know what is happening to the National Oceanographic

Council. There was, in the course of last year, a reorganisation proposed in which the National Oceanographic Council would lose its separate identity and be merged in one of the new research councils. I understand that that has happened, that the Earth Sciences Research Council has been set up and that oceanography as a subject—and I need not dilate on the importance of oceanography to the Committee—has been included. I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether there is a special sub-committee, as we had hoped, to look after the interests of oceanography specifically.
One thing I always feared—and as Civil Lord and, later, as Under-Secretary I had the honour and duty of being chairman of the National Oceanographic Council ex officio—was that the interests of oceanography, and particularly the defence interest in it, might be overlaid, if it were put into the Earth Sciences Research Council, by the more land type of sciences. I hope that that has not happened. I very much hope that special arrangements have been made inside the Earth Sciences Research Council to enable the interests of oceanography to be specifically looked after.
Does the amount of money now asked for under this Subhead include the contribution that is made by the Ministry of Defence, Naval Department to the National Institute of Oceanography? I have with me the annual report of the National Oceanographic Council for last year, and this short quotation from it shows how important this subject is:
If advantage is to be taken of the work of the Institute in the last decade, its natural growth must not be inhibited. The impact of the sea on our lives is too important to ignore and with the impetus gained and the competence at our disposal, future advances can be looked forward to with confidence. Already, however, successful lines of research cannot be pursued as actively as they deserve and promising ideas are being stifled through lack of the means to develop them: these are the growing points of the future.
That part of the introduction concludes with a quotation from a history of science in the United States Federal Government, which I will not read.
I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us how much of the total


sum now asked for is specifically allocated to the funds of the National Institute. Are they satisfied that the Ministry of Defence, Naval Department interests are fuly safeguarded in the new arrangements, and has there been a new sub-committee set up to look after oceanography inside the Council?
Subhead B deals with research and development on other expenditure. The Committee will observe that no less than £17 million is being sought as against £15·8 million last year for research and development contracts, mainly—and I stress "mainly"—for contracts with industry. Would the Minister tell us what activities are envisaged other than those which are contracts with industry? In other words, if we are providing a large sum of money mainly for contracts with industry, what about the rest; what other kind of work are we undertaking?
I would like to know what is the general basis of the allocation of R. and D. contracts. What criterion does the Navy Department use in determining to whom and for what R. and D. contracts are granted? Under the new arrangements the Ministry of Technology is now making a series of grants of R. and D. contracts to industry, and I would like to know if there is some definite tie-up between the Service Department—here the Navy—and the Ministry of Technology in that scheme.
I return to the subject of oceanography, because it is, I believe—in the light of the future pattern of sea activities and warfare—one of the most vital areas in which the Navy should be taking an interest. Under the present Hydrographer a great deal of work has been done, literally on a shoestring, and I hope that the Minister is seized of the importance of this matter and will work manfully to see that all possible support is given to this work by him and his colleagues.

5.07 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: Like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I wish to pose one or two questions about oceanography. Will the Minister give us some information about the deployment of the naval services in this connection from the point of view of our strategic warfare requirements?
I think it is true to say that both naval and civil oceanography has largely followed warfare and civil transport requirements in the past. Is he satisfied that the services are at present deployed adequately in South-East Asia? I believe that if there were to be an inquiry now into the information available to the Navy about the present deployment of naval services in South-East Asia it would be found that there were very substantial gaps in our information.
In connection with Subhead Z—Appropriations in Aid—and specifically the item on charts, could we be told what is the major market for the sale of charts? Are they sold mainly to civil and possibly foreign transport customers, and, in any event, has sufficient attention been paid to the requirements of this relatively new and, I believe, wholly healthy and desirable development of private sailing?
My experience of this, which is relatively limited, is that the availability of Navy charts in simplified form for coastal waters would justify examination by those who are responsible for recouping some of the expenditure on the provision of charts.

5.09 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I too, wish to say something about oceanography, being another ex-chairman of the National Oceanographic Council. I had some Questions down not long ago, as a result of which we found that in oceanography this country, as a maritime Power, is rather lagging behind some other countries and that, when comparisons are made, we do not come out at all well.
I know that some hon. Members are a little worried about the new set-up. The former link between the Institute of Oceanography and the Navy was very close, and it helped research and development. Now that it has been put under the new body, called, I think, the Natural Environment Research Council, which has, as a somewhat queer bedfellow, the Nature Conservancy—all coming, in turn, under the Minister of Education and Science—one wonders whether the same relationship with the Hydrographer's Department can go on. We read in paragraph 176 of the White Paper that
…added emphasis is being given to military oceanography".


Anybody who has studied the subject will agree that oceanography is more important now from the military point of view than it has been for some years. I hope that we can be assured that, despite the new set-up, the work will go on.
In particular, I hope that the new ship "Discovery" can be fully employed. It is well known that in the past there have been times when the Institute could not have commissioned the former vessel for long periods without money from the Admiralty for naval research. I should like to be assured that the new ship, which is so much better equipped to go into oceanographic problems than her predecessor, will be fully employed; that the Hydrographer's Department will have plenty of work for her so that this important work can go on and we no longer find that we are lagging behind what is being done by other countries that have far fewer maritime interests than we have.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I must disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) that oceanography in this country is not highly regarded by people abroad—

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I do not say that. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was talking of the total expenditure in this country on oceanography as compared with the amount spent in Germany, France, Canada and the United States.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: I am obliged for that correction. Although it is true that the amount of money we as a nation devote to oceanography is not commensurate with that of the United States, it stands good comparison with Germany and France. Furthermore, it is a fact that on the little money that our oceanographers have been granted by the former Administration their reputation stands very high indeed, and they have been doing some wonderful work. I hope that later in the debate the Minister will confirm that he will implement with all vigour the statement that oceanography will receive further and additional support from the Government. Oceanography is not only important to strategic warfare problems—problems of the detection of nuclear submarines and hunter killers—but, looking 100 years or more ahead,

it is likely to play a very major part indeed in solving the world's food problems.
I see under Subhead A—Research and Development—that the Department is employing over 7,000 people at an expenditure of about £8½ million. When the present Administration took office they rightly realised that as a country we cannot continue to use our scarce national resources of scientific manpower for defence purposes in the same volume as in the past. I should therefore like to know what contribution the. Navy Department is making towards redeploying some of these 7,000 people in the research and development of products that the country can export and which will help to modernise British industry. I should like to be assured that the Department is not overlooking the fact that it has some wonderful people who can make a contribution, and that it realises that unless we can pay our way we shall not be able to pay for a defence establishment even of the present size.
It is well known that research and development is necessary and useful, and I think that it is also well known that people in research and development have a habit of finding reasons why their piece of research should be continued year after year when it has long lost all relevance and the need for it has passed. What criteria or techniques does the Department use to terminate research and development projects and redeploy those resources and men to purposes more beneficial to the Navy and to the country as a whole than just continuing the research work that was originally authorised?

5.15 p.m.

Commander Courtney: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to Subhead B (1), where there are one or two items about which I—and, I think, the Committee—would like to know more. Mention was made on Thursday, as it has been in previous debates, of the desirability of the Navy developing at long last a surface-to-surface guided missile, and I should like an assurance from the Minister today that what means to many of us a very important technical requirement is not being lost sight of in the research and development programme.
It has been said—quite rightly, think—that the guided missile systems possessed by the small surface craft of our potential enemies, and often lent to other countries—whether with mixed crews or pure crews, we do not know—are equipped with a type of guided missile that is infinitely superior to anything that the Royal Navy possesses at the present time. The corollary which has been mentioned, and which has been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, is that logically, in the presence of such potential enemy warships, convoys or task forces should be accompanied by the fixed-wing aircraft carrier which now forms the first line of defence and the main armament of the Fleet, as the only means of defeating this kind of guided-missile small surface vessel.
I do not think that the Committee should be fobbed off, if I may use the expression, with the assurance that Seaslug has been given surface-to-surface capability within the research and development programme. I have heard Seaslug described very recently as being an excellent piece of agricultural machinery. There are potentialities, however, with Sea Dart. The Committee should have some assurance that the surface-to-surface missile is being developed within this programme by the Royal Navy.
Secondly, a subject on which there has been discussion in the Press as recently as today is the variable geometry project—of which I know the right hon. Gentleman has been waiting for some mention—being developed in conjunction with the French as possible joint service all-purpose aircraft to succeed the Phantom—Buccaneer—P1127 combination in ten years or so from now. Can we be told that this is being investigated from a specific naval point of view, in order to give the Committee some assurance that we shall not repeat the tragic experiment with the P1154, for example, which started from a pure air requirement and could not be fitted to a naval carrier requirement? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that research and development into variable geometry of the future will start with a staff requirement enabling it to operate this aircraft from existing carriers, from

future carriers, and perhaps even from commando ships.
Thirdly, a few words would be desirable on whether the figure, which the Committee will be glad to see has risen by £1¼ million, includes anything in respect of surface nuclear propulsion for warships. This is a vexed question on the civil side. I, for one, feel that the time may well be approaching when the Admiralty should take a further initiative in the matter and perhaps combine the two phases of investigation, the military in the Royal Navy and the mercantile, which are, perhaps, not so far one from the other as some people would like us to think.
Fourthly, is it not possible to put some research and development into a modification of the Wessex II aircraft to enable it to conform to the Royal Navy Wessex V in stowing below in H.M. Commando carriers? Is it beyond the wit of our research and development so to mould the R.A.F. requirement into our own Wessex V helicopters that they can be entirely inter-operable, the Wessex II and the Wessex V? It is a matter of a folding tail and one or two other small modifications, but would it not, from the point of view of the production line, be most advantageous if the two Services, for what is after all a common purpose in the Far East at the moment, could have a modified Mark II, to include the R.A.F. requirements incorporated into the basic naval Mark V?
Finally, a small but, I think, important point. Is it not time that our research and development went flat out after the hovercraft in its application in certain parts of the world where the staff requirements for such a machine—I do not know whether to call it a ship or a aircraft—are perfectly united? I am thinking in particular of the Bahamas, where there are wide sweeps of tidal water, with low sand banks and no high obstacles in the shape of rocks; where there is a particular political problem with Cuban exiles, Cuban revolutionaries and Cuban refugees; and where it is not suitable, in view of the navigational difficulties in the area, for a frigate to be saddled with the entire responsibility. Are not those low sand flats and shallow waters perfect operating conditions for hovercraft? Could not the flag officer—it used to be the Commander-in-Chief,


America and West Indies Station, now with headquarters at Nassau and in a frigate—have one of these at his disposal as part of our research and development programme?

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The amount we spend on research and development grows from year to year. I would welcome some announcement from the Ministry that some of the time of those employed in research and development activities for the Navy was devoted to research into reducing the costs of the various items included in the Navy's expenditure. For example, the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) referred to the guided missile. I should welcome an assurance that, instead of men being employed on such research, which increases cost, they could be employed on a type of research which would reduce costs.
In The Times today there is a very interesting article on aircraft carriers. It is headed:
Aircraft Carrier as Costly Floating Town.
Chips with everything in Ark Royal.
I will give one quotation to show what I mean. Speaking about the weapons in the aircraft carrier, it says this:
There are rockets, bombs and missiles extending through a price range of £850 for a 500 lb. bomb to £8,500 for a guided missile.
Eight thousand five hundred pounds for one guided missile seems to me an excessive amount. Is this a guided missile which was supplied by Ferranti? The activities of the research department might be devoted to reducing the costs of weapons.
Is any research being carried out into reducing the cost of an aircraft carrier? The more research we get, the more expensive the aircraft carriers become. The article in The Times analyses the cost of a new aircraft carrier. The result seems to me to lead to the conclusion that the research department is a very expensive department, because it increases the total sum which we are called on to pay in the Navy Estimates. The figure which was given in the debate on the Navy Estimates was approximately £60 million for an aircraft carrier. Are any research activities being devoted on how to reduce the cost of these enormous floating towns?
The article in The Times comes to the conclusion that, when the aircraft carrier

is complete with aircraft—presumably, it is no good without aircraft—carrier and aircraft will cost £200 million. These are astronomical figures. How many aircraft carriers can we afford for any policy East of Suez, or anywhere in the world, if they are to cost, with aircraft, a total of £200 million?
I would welcome an assurance that those engaged in research work at the Admiralty are engaged in research on how to reduce the cost of aircraft carriers and missiles. Instead, the more we spend on research, the more the bill mounts and mounts to figures we cannot afford. Therefore, I would welcome a reduction in the number—7,000—engaged on research under this Vote. I should like to cut the number by at least one-third, because if the number of people engaged on research for the Navy were reduced, the possibility would be that we should not have such enormous Estimates every year.
To what extent is research in the Navy carried on as a separate department? Is there any co-ordination with the various other research departments? I remember a criticism being made of the naval research department that it was a watertight department which had few contacts with research carried on by the Army and the Air Ministry. Some of the research activities of the Navy might suitably be handed over for review by the Ministry of Technology.
These are enormous figures. I hope that the article in The Times has been widely read, because it will give the British public an idea of how expensive the rôle of the aircraft carrier will be, unless the cost is considerably reduced.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I should like to say a word in support of the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), that versatile seaman, to whose hydrographic experience I may refer in connection with his following the bed of Chichester Harbour when acting as a human outboard motor—and he is very suitably equipped so to do—with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Snow: I should point out that I was acting as "dogsbody" for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Northampton (Mr. Paget), and that is a feat in itself.

Dr. Bennett: I wish to refer to the Hydrographic Department, under Subhead C (2), and to say how satisfactory it seems that whereas in the past year the cost of producing charts and the like has amounted to £200,000 odd, the appropriations in aid, under Subhead Z (2), from the sale of charts amount to a much bigger figure. This seems to be a very profitable enterprise. I see that the cost of producing charts has increased by £54,000 but the expected increase in appropriations in aid is £80,000. This seems to be a very promising field of operation. As the Navy Department has more or less a monopoly in this matter, I hope it will use all its energy and enterprise in developing the market, to which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth referred, for the smaller types of charts used by the enormously increasing number of amateur seamen who sail around our coasts.
I want to know in particular whether a full range of charts for all the coasts which are used by amateurs is likely to be forthcoming, and whether the new ideas in waterproofing, in coating with plastics to make sure that these articles are indestructible by water, and the ingenious ways of folding or rolling these charts for easy stowage, are likely to be applied by the Department. I am sure that any attempt which is made in this direction will be even more profitable than the exercise in which the Department already seems to be engaged.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Mayhew: On the subject of charts, I agree that this is a satisfactorily profitable undertaking on the part of the Navy Department, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will note this point when he criticises us for our expenditure. We save the taxpayer some money by this efficient and profitable venture.
The first requirement, on the other hand, is first-class accuracy and reliability. That goes without saying. I know of no hon. Member who wishes in any way to prejudice the fulfilment of that requirement. This point may arise in connection with the arrangements for the sale of charts, which we are reviewing, but we

wish to maintain the enormously high standard of accuracy and reliability, especially in view of the needs of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). If he goes sailing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I am sure that some especially accurate charts will be required for this purpose.
The main market for the charts is the Merchant Navy. Whereas we do our best to help private yachtsmen, I understand that £1½ million worth of charts per year are sold to the Merchant Navy.
I have been asked a large number of questions—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of charts, may I ask him if he will simplify the method by which amendments are made available to the general public? This is important. If one has a chart and a lifebuoy changes its flashing, for example, the details should be readily available. The amendments should be easily obtainable.

Mr. Mayhew: I agree on the importance of these amendments. This particularly rams home the importance of having organised channels for distributing charts. Otherwise we may get charts which are not properly amended and people may come to grief as a result.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire asked for research into the question of reducing costs and especially the costs of aircraft carriers. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) asked about the deployment of scientific staff. We very much appreciate the heavy responsibility which rests on the Navy Department for employing such a large number of our very best scientists and technicians, and we would be much at fault if we wasted any of the staff that we have or, indeed, if we continued with research and development projects after they were really effective.
I can only assure the Committee that we have a constant review at all stages not only of particular projects but of the whole deployment of our scientific staff. We are answerable not only to the Treasury and the Ministry of Technology but, inside the Department, to the Chief Scientist who, within the Department,


is responsible for the deployment of scientific and technical manpower for each of the Services. The Committee can be well assured that this is carefully watched in order to prevent misuse of very scarce manpower.

Captain W. Elliot: Is it not also a fact that there is a constant stream of modifications and minor revisions from the research department which are incorporated in ships and aircraft and give greater efficiency?

Mr. Mayhew: Indeed there is a considerable fall-out from our research and development work which is beneficial in many directions.

Mr. Snow: I accept the dangers of being slightly anecdotal in these matters, but the point that I put about the need for the most up-to-date and detailed research in connection with charts required in new theatres of war is perfectly sound. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Services in question are looking into the urgent requirements of the Navy?

Mr. Mayhew: I shall be saying something about oceanography later. I wish to deal with some individual points. First, a number of questions were asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) about nuclear propulsion for surface vessels. I can assure him that we understand the tremendous operational advantages of nuclear propulsion for warships. The enormously increased range, flexibility and speed are well understood. Also there are other advantages of a secret nature which I am sure the Committee will not wish me to enlarge upon but which are known to some hon. Members. The drawbacks are also well known to the Committee—in particular the great cost of nuclear propulsion.
We have taken the line that if we are going to make a major effort in this direction it would be sensible to ensure as far as possible that the areas of our research are equally available to the Merchant Navy and to the Royal Navy. At the same time, even here there are some difficulties. There is no disguising the fact that the criteria of success in the two fields are rather different. Nuclear propulsion in the Merchant Navy must pay; that is the major point there. Nuclear

propulsion in the Navy must be operationally effective. The fact is that these two things are not always the same. Our criterion in the Navy must be cost-effectiveness. There are other problems of size, fuel and so on which enter into the equation.
We have not had much time to study this extremely difficult and complicated question, and we have not taken a final view about it, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have not been idle. In fact, we have already undertaken a number of limited studies here which are helping to provide the framework for our policy decisions. These limited studies are now being considered at a high level by a group under the Chief Scientific Adviser. We expect conclusions to emerge soon, which the Government will then be able to consider alongside the parallel studies of the civilian departments. On this basis we hope that we can reach a settled policy. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked about the Wessex. I can only say that we are doing everything we can to make the Wessex II and the Wessex V inter-operable. We are not unhopeful.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East will not mind if I dodge the question about variable geometry aircraft. I am not sure whether it is in order on the Navy Vote, but in any case my right hon. Friend said in the course of the defence debate that he hoped to be able to inform the House during the next few weeks of a Franco-British agreement which, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, would cover a joint strike trainer and also the study of a long-term project which would employ the variable geometry principle. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member had better await my right hon. Friend's statement. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked on Vote 4 what "mainly for contracts with industry" means. The other things excluded are contracts with universities and also one or two with outside experts.
The main question raised by hon. Members was that of oceanography, and here I think I can reassure the Committee. We are giving up responsibility for the administration of the National


Institute of Oceanography, as the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East made clear, and we are handing the responsibility over to the Natural Environment Research Council. Perhaps I should say a few words of farewell and thanks to the National Institute of Oceanography and also to the National Oceanographic Council which is the governing body of the Institute. They did splendid work and we in the Navy are very grateful to them.
Although this is now a matter for the Department of Education and Science and the future constitution is not yet settled, it is the intention and our hope that there will be a management committee specifically for oceanography on which the Navy Department will be represented. We understand the importance of what the hon. and gallant Member said and we are satisfied that the Navy's interests are safeguarded.
We share the views expressed by a number of hon. Members about the importance of oceanography. I think that I said in the debate on the Navy Estimates that from an economic, let alone a defence point of view, there are wide areas of sea space today which are far more important and valuable than wide areas of land, what with oil drilling, gas drilling, fishing and the rest, quite apart from the defence angle which, of course, is of enormous and growing importance. The nuclear submarine has vastly increased the interest in and importance of this subject. The Navy has always been involved in oceanography yet despite the work put in it is astonishing how little we know about the oceans. We need to know, with modern sophisticated weapons, a great deal, particularly about the deep ocean.
This is almost an unknown world. The whole of the deep ocean has still to be charted. During my period of office I have been fascinated to find that the ocean bed is just like the land, with its mountains, plateaux and its weather. The weather, just like the weather in the air, has its varying temperatures, denseness and storms. All this study is of vital importance to modern weaponry. There is the fascinating study of the limitations imposed on sonars by the meteorology of the sea, the differences in density and temperature

which can confound much sonar research. We are well in the forefront in this matter.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who unfortunately is not now present. He paid a great tribute to the reputation of British oceanography in the world. I am sure that that is right and I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly continue with this work energetically. We shall have three new Oceanographic Survey Ships this year. They will be largely employed on the western approaches, on projects in co-operation with our N.A.T.O. colleagues. We are studying the Eastern Atlantic with our N.A.T.O. allies, and we are trying to get a prediction system for undersea weather which can be used by pro-and antisubmarine forces. We have already achieved a certain degree of reliability.
We have also provided more money this year in the Vote. This is not for the Institute but it is for the oceanographic work of the Navy. We can say that the limiting factor in oceanography is not money so much as imagination and the right approach to it. I have been struck by the strong sense in which the Navy understands this work and I assure the Committee that we shall not be behind with it. I cannot recall particular questions which I have not done my best to reply to, but I shall study the report of the debate, and if there are any questions outstanding I shall reply to hon. Members individually.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman say what contribution the Navy makes to oceanographic work either to the Institute or to the new Natural Environment Research Council? If the hon. Gentleman knows, we ought to be told how much is being devoted by the Navy to this research because, as he has said, it is important. We want to be certain that the amount of money which the Navy puts in is matched by equivalent interest on the part of oceanographers in work which will benefit the Navy.

Mr. Mayhew: As I understand, none of the money in Vote 4 will go, as from 1st April, to the National Institute of Oceanography. This will all be done now by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Hay: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much the Navy will spend, forgetting the Vote for the moment? How much will the Navy contribute towards oceanography? It is true that it may be on the Vote of the Department of Education and Science but there must be a military contribution in money which comes from the Navy Department.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Member. We have oceanographical work, on Vote 4, but the financing of the National Institute of Oceanography will be from 1st April entirely a matter for the Ministry of Education and Science.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £27,680,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

Vote 5.—Medical Services, Education and Civilians on Fleet Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,492,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of medical services, education and civilians on Fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Hay: I should like to raise a few questions on this Vote, which deals with the medical services, education and civilians on Fleet services. One of the most interesting features of the White Paper on Defence this year was the reference to a further approach to functionalism inside the Services. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether any thought has been given to the possible amalgamation of the various medical branches of the different Services as one way in which a functional approach might be used.
When we were discussing earlier Vote 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, and we were subsequently told that it was on this Vote that the question of that Service might

be raised. I should like to ask whether, if it were possible, the Government would consider the amalgamation of the three nursing services which are at present run by the Ministry of Defence. To remind the Committee, there is the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps and the Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service.
Of course, even to mention the possibility of amalgamation is bound to put up the hackles of the supporters of these very distinguished services, but it seems to me that if one is to secure any saving and any greater efficiency from the functional approach to defence, obviously, in branches such as nursing, and, indeed, in the whole range of the medical services, such questions must be put.
Another aspect of the medical services in which some kind of unified structure might be created, or, if it exists already, might be extended, is that of the medical and surgical consultants.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. Sir Ronald. I merely ask for information. Under Subhead A it is said that the pay and allowances of medical and nursing staff come under Vote 1. Are we, therefore, in order in discussing consultants and medical staff under this Vote as well?

Mr. Hay: Further to that point of order, Sir Ronald. May I draw your attention to the first line of that paragraph, which makes clear that Subhead A provides for the pay and allowances of all staff employed in medical establishments?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): It is quite in order to discuss the pay of staff of medical establishments on this Vote.

Mr. Hay: That is exactly what I was trying to do. It is very difficult, in the context of these individual Votes, to be quite sure that one is in order, but I think that I am.
I was asking whether there was the possibility of a more functional approach as regards consultants. There are various types of specialist employed by the Navy, the Army and the Air Force in hospitals abroad and, I think, in the United Kingdom, and I wonder whether


it is possible for the Minister to tell us a little about the way in which the services of such gentlemen may be unified or made more functional so that one might have not the individual and separate Service consultants but a more unified medical service.
I take next Subhead B, Education. I have a question to raise here with regard to children's schools. I do not wish to talk about education in the Services generally here. Subhead B (3) relates to children's schools, and on page 65 of the Estimates an explanation is given. The education of children of Servicemen is given abroad on a tri-Service basis. I have seen the naval school in Malta, a school run by the Navy but to which children from Royal Air Force and Army families come. It is a very happy school. The same thing is happening, evidently, in Singapore and Mauritius, hut I have some questions to ask about it.
I understand that these children's schools suffer from a shortage of staff. There are great difficulties in the staffing of them, and in some instances wives of Service men who happen to be stationed there and who have teaching qualifications are brought in to act as teachers. That may be all right so long as they are there, but if a man is suddenly drafted away and his family goes, at once the school loses a teacher. This is not a very satisfactory way to run a school, and I am quite sure that, although they do their best, the principals of the schools have great difficulties in this respect. I should be grateful if the matter could be looked at.
Next, a question about the equipment for these children's schools. On the whole, the equipment of the school in Malta which I saw was good, but in my time I had complaints about unsatisfactory and delayed deliveries of equipment. I set in train certain investigations while I was at the Ministry of Defence. I hope that they have been carried through to a successful conclusion. Now that we have a unified central Ministry, it should be much easier for the Navy to beat the Air Force over the head and make sure that R.A.F. Transport Command is prepared much more readily than in the past to take urgently needed supplies of scholastic equipment,

books, and so on, to these schools where appropriate.
I see the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army in his place now, and I cannot avoid mentioning Greenwich College. This comes under the same Vote. Now that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity, since joining the Ministry, I hope that he has got to grips with the facts about Greenwich. Over the years, on many occasions from this side of the Committee, he has attacked me and my predecessors about what he called the inefficiency of Greenwich College, the appalling waste, and so on. I hope that the facts have been borne in on him now. Perhaps he would care to look up his own speeches in HANSARD to refresh his memory.
I have one question to ask here. Is there scope for more tri-Service courses? This is one point on which I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was right. In the years to come, Greenwich College might well be a tri-Service College, certainly at the higher level for really senior officers. A certain amount has been done along these lines, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
I entirely disagree with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army about the Navy side of Greenwich. I was always certain that it was right to keep Greenwich firmly in the hands of the Navy and not try to move the courses elsewhere or, as he suggested, vacate the building completely and hand it over to some unspecified body to run a kind of second-class university there. I always regarded that as a very bad suggestion, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels differently about it now. Nevertheless, on the point which I have raised, I should be glad to be told whether there is any prospect of tri-Service courses being held at Greenwich College.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Subhead B(1) deals with the naval colleges. I raised this matter in Committee of Supply last week and I complained that, on the basis of evidence available to me, particularly on the basis of a Report published 10 years ago, the proportion of independent school entrants into the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth was, in fact, more than half the total


each year. I was asked by hon. Members opposite to bring my researches up to date, and the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) asked me whether I had looked at the names of successful candidates for entry into the Royal Naval College published in The Times each time an entry is announced. His words are reported in c. 725 of HANSARD of 11th March. The hon. Gentleman said that he had looked at the list in recent years and suggested that, if I had done the same, I should have seen that the ratio of successful candidates from Headmasters' Conference schools had been about one in five. Other hon. Members later on asked me to bring my figures up to date.
I responded by saying that, on the information available to me, my impression was that the maintained grammar schools had a far smaller proportion of places than would be suggested by the figures given by the hon. Member for Ilford, North, but I did not press the point then. I have done some further research, and I wish to draw these facts to the attention of the Committee.
The last list was issued on 23rd September, 1964. It shows about 230 names, and over half of those are of candidates from Headmasters' Conference schools. The proportion was not one in five. On the basis of this most recent information, I suggest that relatively little progress has been made in the last 10 years in recruiting a larger number of cadets to the Royal Naval College from schools other than Headmasters' Conference schools.
I am not at this stage suggesting why matters are as they are, although I did last week refer to several of the reasons which were given by the Committee which inquired into the matter 10 years ago and reported to Parliament. The proportion of about half the candidates successful coming from Headmasters' Conference schools is very similar to the proportion entering Sandhurst. It may be that there are some common factors here. I would draw attention to an interesting fact. On the first occasion when I complained that headmasters of maintained grammar schools were pressing upon me the difficulty of getting their bright and energetic boys accepted for commissions, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the grammar schools did not

submit candidates in sufficient quantity and that places in these institutions could not be obtained unless sufficient candidates were submitted. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) made this point.
When I return to this subject in the debate on the Navy Estimates and point out that over a 4½-year period there have been 2,500 candidates submitted from the maintained grammar schools compared with 1,500 from Headmasters' Conference schools, which proves conclusively that it was not shortage of numbers but the high failure rate at the interview board stage which was responsible for the failure of the candidates, I think I have made my point.
In the previous debate hon. Members opposite said that my figures about successes were 10 years out of date. But I have brought to light more recent facts. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are so energetic in defending the existing position that they sometimes, in all sincerity, present wrong information in an attempt to defeat my case. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to investigate the causes of the heavy failure of boys submitted by the maintained grammar schools for consideration for commissions at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth. I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends care about the social inequality that exists here. The facts are overwhelming. I do not want hon. Members opposite to tell me that grammar schools do not submit candidates, because I find that they do, nor do I want them to suggest that the position has completely changed in the last 10 years, because the most recent pass list shows that a bias—I am not suggesting it on the part of the interview board—in terms of success is still operating.

Commander Courtney: The hon. Gentleman has given some very interesting and useful figures. Does he appreciate that we are all at a loss for such figures and are all, therefore, very grateful to him for his researches? As one who is extremely interested in the subject, I would point out that the Dartmouth entry lacks both numbers and standard, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he can suggest an alternative source, wherever it may be, the Committee will be very grateful to him.

Mr. Rhodes: I am delighted to have that assurance. The point that I was making was that some hon. Members opposite had been only too willing to try to destroy the case which has been brought forward, sometimes by the presentation of information which has been proved incorrect. I welcome the assurance that there is strong feeling on the other side of the Committee that we should discover the nature of the problem. I hope that there will be an inquiry and that some evidence will be brought forward.

6.4 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I want to refer to some hospital questions under the heading of "Medical Services". I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Naval Hospital Service for all branches, not only for those in Her Majesty's Services but for civilians. It has been a tremendous advantage to those employed in that service that civilians should have been taken in inconsiderable numbers. Not only does it shorten the local hospital waiting list, but it also gives the Service medical officers valuable additional experience. I gather that in the Plymouth area the Service medical officers are encouraged to visit civilian hospitals to undertake gynaecological work, and this increases their knowledge and must be of benefit to them in their career.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) that the three nursing services in the Armed Forces should be amalgamated. I cannot see any reason why those services should be amalgamated, any more than that the three Women's Services themselves should be amalgamated. A tremendous tie is created through serving an individual Service, and I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.
I should like to know whether it is the Government's policy to improve the standards of the hospitals. If the hospitals are to attract good medical staff with adequate experience, the facilities must be provided in which they can work. Some naval hospitals date back to the time of Nelson, and they certainly need to be brought into line with modern conditions. If there are long wards, with

open coal fires in the middle of them, I do not think that this is exactly up to the necessary standards. When there are galleys which are a considerable distance from the wards, this does not improve the dietary standards.
The Government seem to be keen on reviews, and I hope that there will be a detailed review of these hospitals. If they are to be all-purpose hospitals, they must be brought more up to date. We have excellent people working in them, and it would be a great pity if they did not have facilities adequate to allow them to do the high grade medical work which they can do.
I should like to draw attention to the Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse, and would urge that the officer's mess should be improved. The Minister has indicated agreement with this, so I shall say no more now. He knows what a state it is in. It really needs the added facilities for which I have been asking.
I also suggest that these hospitals need their individual laundries. It has been suggested that in some cases the laundries should be amalgamated with local services. In view of the very quick turnover which is needed, I hope that it will be appreciated that individual laundries for these hospitals are absolutely essential.
There has been a considerable improvement in sick bays in ships, but I would hope that when future ones are built we might have a little more decoration, so that there will not be such a rigid disciplinary air about them or those ghastly counterpanes with anchors on them. I think we could make sick bays on ships a little more pleasant. If one is sick, it is nicer to have better surroundings. I have found an immense improvement in the sick bays of H.M.S. "Eagle." I hope that what I have said will be borne in mind when future sick bays are being designed.
I have been interested to hear what has been said about the Royal naval colleges. I see that the entries to Dartmouth have recently gone up considerably. I should like to know how many of the intake are overseas personnel. I know that cadets are coming in in fairly large numbers from the Commonwealth. Every Christmas vacation for six years I have taken into my home cadets from overseas—from Ghana or


Nigeria. I find that some of them do not have adequate facilities for a full career in their own country. I suggest that we might recruit from Commonwealth countries more cadets who would be willing to come to Dartmouth and then serve in the Royal Navy. These people are very keen, but there are only small navies in their own country.
When I was once in Nigeria, and posts for Nigerian personnel in the Royal Navy were being advertised, about 5,000 men tried to enlist, and they had eventually to be dispersed, the police using tear gas to get them away from headquarters. I would not say that all these people are of officer quality, but there are a tremendous number of young men in the Commonwealth who are anxious for adventure and could learn a great deal from the Royal Navy and then be efficient administrators on returning to their own country. I should, therefore, like the Minister to consider whether we should not encourage further people from overseas to join the Royal Navy itself.
In paying tribute to the dockyard technical colleges, I should like to know whether the Under-Secretary does not think that the time has come, perhaps, to shorten the length of time to qualify. The educational standards in schools are much higher than when the qualifying period was originally set and I should have thought that a shorter period to qualify would be adequate.
As to the schools, I have found both in Singapore and elsewhere overseas that there are adequate education facilities, but I should like to know what proportion of the cost of these schools is borne by the Navy. Most of the schools are all-Service schools, but in the Estimates the Navy seems to be paying a rather high proportion of the cost of these schools overseas when I should have thought that the majority of them catered more for the Army or the Air Force.
I attach great importance to educational and vocational training, but I am not certain to what this item in the Estimates relates. Does it apply to people who are leaving the Service to take other careers, or does it relate to educational and vocational training for other jobs which personnel might take within the Service? This is a particularly important item and a large sum of money is involved.

If this is to help people to settle down in future careers, I am all in favour of it—it is an admirable idea. I should like to know how this works out and how many people are settled in careers through this medium when they leave the Navy.
My final point concerns civilians employed in Fleet services. Regrettably, in this debate, I have been precluded from mentioning the dockyards, but I can get near to the subject on victualling and other services. Who is to be responsible for the conditions in which these people work in the future? Previously, the buildings were provided by the Admiralty, but in future this is to be done by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. I should like to know what authority the Minister for the Navy will have to ensure that employees have adequate working conditions and to what extent he works with the other Ministry.
I refer to this matter particularly because only the other day I visited a recently-built canteen which, to my astonishment, had no facilities even for people to wash their hands. Does the Department for the Navy specify the requirements which the Ministry of Public Building and Works must observe in building the buildings in which civilians are employed on Fleet services work? I understand that this service has been handed over to the other Ministry, but I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman's Department lays down requirements concerning the conditions in which his employees are in future to be employed.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Lady referring specifically to dockyards, or to all establishments?

Dame Joan Vickers: I was referring particularly to people employed in victualling and other services in the dockyards.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I should like to ask a few questions of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary concerning Subhead A(2), medical stores. I should like to know what form of contracting for drugs is used in the Navy. Is it part of a defence Services contract with the Ministry of Health, or is there some form of split-up and a direct Navy drug contract? I ask this because the Committee will be


aware of the disquiet that has been voiced from both sides of the House in recent years concerning the prices of the more sophisticated drugs and the big disparity between what is charged in the National Health Service and what is charged by some companies abroad. I should like, therefore, to know whether there is a separate Navy contract for the supply of drugs, whether the Department uses the Ministry of Health as its agent and whether it is satisfied that the Navy is getting not only good drugs, but drugs of reasonable price.
Stemming from that question, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health recently announced the institution of an inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for Defence to offer evidence on drugs and their prices to that Committee?
Reference has been made to the dockyard technical colleges and I join the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in paying tribute to the marvellous work that they have done. In the interest of economy, however, I wonder whether the time has not come to consider whether these colleges should not take in students from outside the shipping industry or, conversely, whether some of the work of these colleges could not be more usefully farmed out to colleges of advanced technology or other technological educational institutions. I have no particular desire to see these colleges abandoned, but there is, I think, a case for seeing whether economies can be made.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. I confess that my knowledge of the naval aspects of the college are rather limited, but I should like to know whether any part of the cost of Greenwich is borne by the Ministry of Works. Speaking personally, when I go to Greenwich it is to see the buildings. I should like to know whether the whole cost, or part of it only, is borne by my hon. Friend's Ministry.
I rose earlier to a point of order which was, perhaps, construed as criticising the hon. Member for Henley about whether it was in order to speak about the medical services on this Vote. You kindly ruled that it was in order, Sir Ronald, which permits me to ask this question. How

frequently are the surgeons in the Service given facilities for postgraduate courses? Although I would not expect a direct answer now, may I know what are the branches of medicine in order of priority in which advantage of these refresher courses is taken by the surgeons in question? There seems to be a feeling that more facilities should be given to keep them up to date.
This is a general criticism which could apply to the whole medical profession, but it is important when a surgeon has to have extremely wide knowledge of medicine which he must shoulder without recourse, which the ordinary general practitioner has, to the local hospital. He is there by himself, taking a tremendous responsibility.
I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being whimsical in asking in connection with medical stores what is the policy, what is the research and what is the current practice about repellents to deal with sharks.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What kind of sharks?

Mr. Snow: There are some interjections that I prefer not to hear. I am referring to the physical dangers suffered by people who have to swim for it when they get into the water.
I recently read a report issued by the United States naval authorities on the subject. I was interested to see that of the many shark repellents produced during the last war, it was more or less demonstrable that none of them worked, not only because insufficient research had been given to the problem, but because sharks are completely unpredictable in their behaviour.
Perhaps hon. Members have recently seen a picture in the Sun, which thrilled but slightly horrified me, of an unpleasant and vast tiger shark on which a brave Australian was taking a pick-a-back, if that is the right expression, in the water off Melbourne. If it is a fact that we cannot predict the behaviour of the shark, then I think that we ought to know about this. If, on the other hand, research is being carried out, we should like to know about that.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the date of this American report that he mentioned and whether it


would not have been very much better for him to have read the report produced by the Admiralty in recent years which shows there are quite effective shark repellents? Considerable work is going on in this subject.

Mr. Snow: The report I read I read in the Library of the House in the place dedicated to new books. I read it about two months ago, and that is as far as I can go. If what the hon. Member has said—and, no doubt, it will be confirmed—is the case and the Royal Navy has an answer I shall be very satisfied, and I think that the Navy will be satisfied, but the fact of the matter is that we are sitting—or standing—in comfort in this Chamber and can afford to have a good laugh at this, but try jumping off a boat in tropical seas, and then we shall get very different ideas about it.

Commander Pursey: May I give my hon. Friend some practical experience, quite shortly? In my young days, in the Mediterranean, before one bathed from a battleship one exploded a guncotton charge to frighten the sharks away. After a period of trial and error the opinion was then expressed that the guncotton charge attracted the sharks—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): The hon. and gallant Member is getting far away from medical stores.

Mr. Snow: I was about to say to my hon. and gallant Friend, hoping not to be out of order, that I was not really talking about pleasure swimming from a battleship in Valletta Harbour, and so on, but about having to swim for it from a large or a small vessel in tropical seas.
This is a serious matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) may rest assured that I do not speak entirely from experience of swimming in Chichester Harbour. I have swum considerably in tropical waters—in my youth, when I was a young man; and the more I think back on that experience the braver I think I was; but it was bravery born of sheer ignorance, because it is a fact, which I think is now widely accepted, that shark behaviour is unpredictable.
Our fellow-citizens in ships need protection, if such protection is available, and I hope my hon. Friend will give me his views on this matter.

6.23 p.m.

Captain W. Elliot: The thing which worries me about the Navy Estimates in general is the fact that the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force Estimates are all in one document. I wish that I had been able to expand on this last Thursday. This Vote is for medical services, etc., and civilians on Fleet services.
We know that there are more than 10,000 Royal Marines and there are going to be more, and we know how brilliantly they are fighting and have fought in Radfan, in the desert and in the jungle. We heard about that on Thursday. I should like to ask the Minister who is paying for all the necessary medical services for those wars. It is only a tiny portion of the problem, but I should like to know who actually is paying for these services. It may be a small burden, no doubt, on the back of the Navy, if it pays for them, but extended over all fields I believe that this is one of the reasons why the Navy experiences difficulties.
There is another question I should like to ask. There is no mention here of air medicine. I imagine that this is a very important aspect of these services and I should like to know whether we are training naval doctors. Do they work with the Royal Air Force? Is there a naval air medicine school, or are they seconded to the medical school under the R.A.F.? How does that aspect of medicine bear on the Navy Estimates?

6.25 p.m.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: I should like to add a little to the remarks of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), which I think were extremely important, in that he raised the question of auxiliary work for the Navy such as shark repellents and this type of scientific work. I should like to mention that a great deal of this is going on under Vote 5, particularly under Subhead A (3), Miscellaneous payments and services, I imagine through the Royal Naval medical school and the naval air medical school, which brings us to the point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot).
I notice that the Vote has been increased by only £3,000 this year, but an extraordinary amount of extremely valuable work is going on in allied subjects, in science and in medicine, not covered by any research done in this country at all in any medical school or in any other establishment. I would hope that in time more and more facilities can be devoted to this work.
To give an example—and I must also declare an interest here, in that I was involved in this type of work myself only two years ago—the only survey into drowning going on in the entire British Isles is in the Royal Naval medical school. No other medical school and no part of our scientific services in this country is covering this field at all. So the Navy is doing great service not only for its own people but for the whole civilian population of the country, too. There are many other aspects of work going on in this field—shark repellents, diving medicine, air medicine—which is used in civil aviation, and so on. This is of value directly to the rest of the British population; it is of great value in training medical scientists, and, eventually, as the men retire from the Service and go into the universities and into industry, there, too.
I think that is the only point I would make on this Vote. It has been suggested by one hon. Member that unification of the medical service and the nursing service would aid economy. I think that this would need to be examined most closely. I do not think that unification of services necessarily adds to economy. Sometimes it merely adds another structure on top of an existing structure to co-ordinate the others and makes a lot of administrative jobs, not necessarily an economy in the services or an improvement in efficiency. I know that this Committee has been pressing for many years to unify the medical services, particularly of the three Services, but I think that we ought to examine that very closely before we rush into it.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to raise three fairly short points. The first is under Subhead B on education, and I should like to refer to the naval colleges. The cost of them has gone up considerably. I know that it is difficult to keep

it down. I do not know whether increased staff entry has anything to do with this, but I should like to inquire what is the ratio of staff to cadets at the present time.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) spoke at some length about entry and was concerned about the ratio of those from public schools and grammar schools. I think he has done his research very well. As he went on I thought he would finish by showing that the comprehensive schools were the ones showing up best of all. I thought it was the policy of the party opposite to abolish grammar schools which my hon. Friends and I wish to see preserved. It was refreshing to find somebody on the other side standing up for the grammar schools, and I hope he will continue to do so.

Mr. Rhodes: The most recent class lists show that there were two successful candidates from comprehensive schools.

Mr. Digby: I hope that they will do better in the future.
The dockyard technical colleges under B(2) have been mentioned. I regard them as of great importance to the Navy and I hope that this opportunity will be taken to tell us a little more about them. What is their intake going to be for the ensuing year? Is it to be stationary, or is it to go up, or is it to go down? Are there any staffing difficulties? Is the ratio of staff to pupils being kept satisfactory? Last, but not least, what is the loss ratio to industry?
I think it has always been accepted that a fair proportion of those who get this excellent training go to outside industry, just as many of the firms in outside industry which run the best apprentice schemes tend to lose a fair proportion to other people, and perhaps even to the Royal Navy itself. I should like to hear a little more about the dockyard technical colleges, because I believe that they are of the utmost importance to the Navy and that they do a very good job.
Lastly, I wish to say a word about Subhead C, Civilians employed on Fleet services. This is a pretty big Vote—more than £11 million—and it has gone up considerably. I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but a number of these


men must be serving overseas, and, as foreign currency is of such great importance to this country, I wonder why it has been necessary to increase this Vote, and whether an effort has been made to cut down and to keep within limits these civilians employed on Fleet services overseas. It has sometimes been found in the past that this Vote has tended to drift upwards, and I should like an assurance that this has been looked at carefully from the overseas point of view.

6.33 p.m.

Dr. Bennett: Before discussing medical services, I should like to say that I am not concerning myself today with matters of medical stores, or medical comforts, even as discussed in to-day's newspapers, or with shark repellents. With regard to the little adventure of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) in Chichester Harbour, perhaps he remembers that the emblem of the Law Society Yacht Club is a shark—in this case he is more of a shark propellent.
I should like to say something about the medical services in confirmation of what was said by my hon. Friend. I know that from the Naval Air Medical School at least one distinguished doctor has continued in the service of aviation medicine ever since his service in the Navy. He is doing a lot of good work for the country as a whole, and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I express a little concern about the remarks in paragraph 98 of the White Paper where it says:
The Medical Branch still requires more qualified doctors, and it is hoped to increase the number of awards made under the medical scheme.
Can the hon. Gentleman give us information about what he is doing, about what the awards are doing, to what extent they are to be increased, and indeed what is the shortage of doctors for the Navy? This is a serious matter and I am sure that we should all be grateful for information on this subject.
What I wish finally to draw attention to is the actual presentation of these Votes for medical services. I confess that I am a little puzzled. I may be very stupid, and perhaps the Minister can explain this. I see that the establishment

provided for under this head in 1964–65 was 1,946, increasing to 1,950. for 1965–66 it goes from 2,019 down to 2,018, but from the last day of March, I presume to April Fool's Day, 1965, it seems to have gone up by 69. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that extraordinary leap when in each year there seems to be a reduction?

6.35 p.m.

Commander Courtney: I wish to ask two brief questions about Vote 5 B.(1), which refers to naval colleges. The Committee will have noted that the sum estimated has gone up by £150,000. My first question is whether any of this represents an increase in the facilities given to cadets of the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in initial flying experience. I say this because, from an inspection on the spot, it seems that the cost effectiveness of the initial flying experience given to these cadets, at least last year, was lamentable by normal comparison because of the distance between Dartmouth and Roborough Aerodrome where these cadets get their experience. Has any progress been made in the extension of the grass area about a mile north-west of the college where there is already a helicopter landing ground, to allow the use of light aircraft for this purpose? This seems to me a far more economic, more useful, and cost-effective means of giving this necessary initial experience to cadets.
My second question bears on the same subject. There is a serious shortage of flying personnel in the Navy at the present time, for which I cannot see any immediate and effective counter. Has any allowance been made in the Estimates for an approach to University Air Squadrons from a naval point of view? I am thinking of a naval flight of the University Air Squadron, or perhaps one of the new university air squadrons. I have mentioned Sussex University and Shoreham Aerodrome. May we have an assurance that this has been looked into as a matter of urgency in view of the considerable shortage at the present time?

6.38 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Reference has been made to the medical services and hospitals. I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame


Joan Vickers) that we are doing a great deal to improve the standards of naval hospitals. The hon. Lady referred to the medical officers' mess at Stonehouse. I have never seen such a slum in all my life, and I am delighted that work on that has begun. As the hon. Lady knows, it is not only the officers' mess at Stone-house that needs improvement, but at Haslar there is need for improvement, and work there is proceeding fairly steadily.
There has been a tremendous change in the naval medical services during the last 20 years. We used to think, perhaps unjustifiably, that naval doctors were a bit out of date; that the Navy generally was so healthy that its doctors did not get the practice which they ought to have. That is not so now. I do not mean that the Navy is not healthy. I mean that the doctors get a great deal of practice because these hospitals play a tremendous part in the Health Service itself.
One of the hospitals in Portsmouth is now—not before time—closing its main operating theatres for a couple of years to renovate them. It has put in a request that Haslar should make available regularly a certain number of beds for the National Health Service, and I am delighted to say that that will be done. It is a tremendous help to the Health Service and it also helps our doctors to keep reasonably up to date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) asked about drugs. We get the bulk of Our supplies from the Ministry of Health, which acts as our agent, but I understand that in respect of a small proportion of them we have direct contracts of our own. I know nothing, about the subject of shark repellents. I have learned quite a bit from what the two hon. Members have said so far, but I am still trying to extract some more information about it. Obviously, research is being done, and when I can get hold of further information I shall pass it on.
On the subject of rationalisation, I am not very excited about the idea of amalgamating the nursing services into one. In all this talk of rationalisation I do not believe that many people have thought of rationalising individual services into one. There is rationalisation of some services and of some supplies, and perhaps of some branches, but as far

as possible the idea is to leave individual services as they are, while doing a great deal of rationalisation and integration at the top.
There is a tremendous amount of co-operation in medicine. I have seen hospitals run by the Royal Navy at Malta and Gibraltar not just for itself but for all three Services, and running them most efficiently. There is a great deal of interchange of patients, and so on. Occasionally we have joint units. There is a joint psychiatric unit in being. Wherever it can be seen that efficiency will be improved and cost diminished efforts will be made to combine, but this is not necessarily advisable in all cases. It does not always follow that combination leads to improvements in the Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) raised once again the question of admission to Dartmouth. I have been greatly interested in this matter for a long time. Some years ago I had the experience of sitting in on one of the selection boards at Dartmouth for the best part of three days. I was absolutely convinced that there was no question of prejudice on the part of the board. It was anxious to get the best officers, no matter from what source they came. Being a Northerner, however, with some North Country bias, I did feel that those who had been at day school and were coming south for the first time—perhaps spending a night away from home for the first time—felt themselves at some disadvantage, however much the board leant over to help them.
There has been some evidence of this in the past, but the present figures—I hope that mine are right—are remarkably interesting. I have here an analysis of cadets entering Dartmouth, expressed in terms of percentages coming from independent schools and grammar and other State schools. In 1954, no less than 61 per cent. came from independent or public schools. During the years that percentage has dropped steadily until last year, when the figure was 40 per cent. In 1954, the proportion coming from grammar and other State schools was 39 per cent. During the years that proportion has increased to 60 per cent.—a tremendous reversal of the previous position.
We have done away with the written examination now, and I can give the figures only from 1961, but of those who were accepted at interview, 59 per cent. were from public schools in 1961. That figure has dropped during the following years to 46 per cent. in 1964. Fifty-eight per cent. of those applying from direct grant schools in 1961 were successful. That proportion has steadily increased to the present figure of 66 per cent. For grammar schools, whereas 47 per cent. were accepted in 1961, 53 per cent. were accepted in 1964. The trend is therefore very much in the direction that my hon. Friend would like to see.

Mr. Hay: It would be greatly for the convenience of the Committee if the figures, in a fuller form, could be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I believe that such a procedure is permissible. Will the hon. Member consider it?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes. I think that the easiest way of doing this is to put down a Question for Written Answer. We will arrange that in one way or another.

Mr. Rhodes: I am grateful for the information that my hon. Friend has supplied. The figures indicate that the trend is in the direction that I wish to see. Nevertheless, two-fifths of the candidates are still drawn from a very narrow section of our schools. Only if the present trend continues over the next ten or 15 years will we have equality of opportunity in terms of entry to the Royal Navy.

Mr. Mallalieu: I agree. My Department and the Government are interested in spreading the net as widely as possible. That goes not only for public schools and State and grammar schools; it also applies in terms of geography. We want to spread the net as widely as possible over the whole country.
The number of boys coming from north of a line drawn from the Humber to the Severn was 25 per cent. in 1961, whereas it is now 31 per cent. That is some improvement. As I go round I find that an increasing number of people from Yorkshire and Lancashire—and, indeed, from the very centre of the country—are now officers in the Service.
I must revert for a minute to the subject of shark repellents. I understand

that divers tie a small object about the size of a matchbox to their belts. It is supposed to let off a vapour which repels sharks. How successful it is in doing that I do not know.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) expressed a little concern about the staffing of the naval schools, the Service schools abroad. That has been worrying us and we are about to increase the teaching staff overseas by 13 new members in the course of the next few weeks. This is partly because of the need to increase the numbers in the schools but also to improve the pupil-teacher ratio.
I hesitate to mention Greenwich in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army—as the Committee will know, there are a series of investigations going on affecting the Royal Naval College. First, the departmental investigation into the proposals made by the Select Committee on Estimates, some time back. We are looking at those with great seriousness. Sir Ronald Melville's Committee is studying the effect of Lord Robbins' Report and all that on education in the Service. Finally, the Principal Personnel Officers' Committee is looking at the whole question of rationalising training throughout the Services.
All these have a direct bearing, or could have, on the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. I cannot say now what proposals will emerge. I can say from my experience, and the feeling I have acquired in the Department, that whatever changes may be proposed for Greenwich there will still remain a function of enormous importance to the Royal Navy. One has only to look at some of the courses which go on there, apart from the War Office courses and the rest of it, to realise the tremendous amount of valuable work which is done and which will continue to be done.
The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port asked what proportion of cadets from overseas were attending the courses at Dartmouth. The figure varies, it is something of the order of 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. The hon. Lady suggested that we might try to recruit some of these people into the Royal Navy. Some countries bar their nationals from joining the Royal Navy. Wherever there is no such bar they are very welcome and not only as officers, either. We are most anxious


to recruit Maltese into the Service both as officers, if their educational standards are high enough, or as ratings. We are prepared to accept anybody who is likely to make a good sailor, provided that there is no security risk or anything of that kind. Not only are we prepared to accept them, we should be delighted to welcome them into the Service.
I have covered some of the points which have been raised in the debate. If I find there are points of importance upon which I have not touched, I shall make certain that the answers are provided for the hon. Members concerned. I will certainly undertake, by one method or another, that full tables of figures about the Dartmouth entry appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Dr. Bennett: Will the Minister provide an answer to the curious numerical discrepancies to which I drew attention?

Mr. Mallalieu: Is that about the Dartmouth costs?

Dr. Bennett: No, the fact that the numbers went down by one in one year and up by four in the next, but went up by 69 between the end of one year and the beginning of the next.

Mr. Mallalieu: I have not that information. I will find it for the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,492,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of medical services, education and civilians on Fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

Vote 9. Non-effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,324,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Ian Fraser: I wish to relate my remarks closely to Subheads A and B of this Vote in order to make a plea to the Minister that he and his right hon. Friends should distinguish their term of office from that of all parties which have preceded them by endeavouring to make really substantial

progress towards the principle of parity in respect of retired naval pay and pensions. I relise that this is a matter which is under review and I am glad of it, but I am sure that if we are to make substantial progress, it is necessary that all who believe that progress should be made should constantly put forward and urge that view. Parity is essentially something which is far more attractive to an Opposition than to a Government. Of its nature that must be so.
I am quite sure that if hon. Gentlemen opposite look back to their election literature they will find that they gave some enthusiastic undertakings for things of an undertaking type—I do not impose any strictures on them for that—which appealed in the days when they were on this side of the Committee. It certainly does not lie in my mouth to criticise hon. Members opposite for that. In my own election address I pledged myself to continue to work for progress towards parity. That is in no way inconsistent with my very junior membership of the previous Government which did a great deal for Service pensions. In any case—if I may, for five seconds diverge from the strict path of order—I would say that anyone who, acted as an unpaid Whip in the previous Administration as I did, could certainly not be criticised for having an interest in parity, when we see the comfortably rewarded holders of such offices now whom we meet with such pleasure when swimming about in the usual channels. "Channel" or "mud bank", I know that these hon. Members are not carried on Vote 9. I note that fact and I will return to the retired officers and ratings who are carried on Vote 9.
I wish to suggest to the Minister that in considering progress towards parity we need not pay too much attention to the obstacles often held to arise by reason of the repercussions which parity in any particular case may have in other walks of life. This always seems to me the major stumbling block. Here, on the contrary, there is much that would be of great value to these retired officers and men. There is much which could be done simply by reviewing, adjusting, assimilating and upgrading the complex and obsolete codes under which retired pay and pensions are drawn. This is a process for which there is ample precedent in the past. Whatever views may be held by


hon. Members on either side of the Committee on the pure principle of parity, I am sure there will be no division of opinion that the present tangle of obsolete codes is an anachronism and an injustice, which ought to be remedied.
There is another recent factor, small enough, no doubt, in itself, which is impressing this fact on the minds of those affected. It is the increase in the pensions of Merchant Navy officers, an increase on a sliding scale. I think that the nature of the sliding scale is something like this. The increases range from about 7½ per cent. for men under 45 to 70 per cent. for those aged 75. It is that sort of sliding scale which, I have evidence from my constituency correspondence, is making a considerable impact on the minds of the older officers who are affected.

Commander Pursey: I am following this point with very great interest. The point which I should be like to be clear about at this stage is whether the hon. Member is advocating large increases on the present very high scale of officers' pensions as compared with ratings, or is he advocating a large increase in the old low pensions? In justice to himself, as he is making a very good speech, I think that he should make clear precisely which of these two horses he is backing.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. In fact, there is no question here of officer or man. I am not making any distinction in what I am saying between the question of retired pay for officers and pensions for ratings or anything of that kind—

Commander Pursey: Present or past.

Mr. Fraser: Past. I am sorry. I should have made that more clear.
I must not go on much longer, because we are running late, but it is the case that serving personnel are sometimes apt—I expect that this was true of oneself when one was serving—to be less interested in those drawing retirement pay and pensions than they might be. Nevertheless, what we in the Committee must remember—I am certain that the Minister is as conscious of this as anybody—is that it is the retired, and

it must be the retired, officers and ratings alike, who constitute the soil in which the Services are rooted.
There is a real and vital connection between Vote 9, retired pay and pensions, and the present manpower deficiencies which we discussed on Vote 1. It is that vital link which I am sure the Committee ought to keep constantly in mind when it considers the revision of the tangle of out-dated codes under which retired pay and pensions are now drawn.

7.3 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Ian Fraser). In some of my remarks I shall be supporting his argument. I would assure him that my intervention was intended to aid him in clearing up what I thought was a very important point.
I must say to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee that it is the greatest pity that we did not have that speech 13 or 20 years ago. Then we might have got somewhere with parity under a Tory Government, which did absolutely nothing about parity.

Mr. Ian Fraser: Perhaps that would be due to the difference between the Opposition and the Government, to which I made reference earlier.

Commander Pursey: I quite appreciate that the hon. Gentleman made that point, but we must get this straight. There is no question at all that the Tory Party is and always has been much better in opposition, advocating reforms for the Services which they never attempt to carry out when they become the Government.
Having sat through practically the whole of this debate since 3.30 and after two Votes largely on materiel—ships, organisation and the like—it is pleasing now to pass to a Vote which is mainly concerned with personnel and the important subject of pensions for officers and men, and also widows, where those latter pensions are paid. The hon. Member for Sutton made no reference at all to ratings' widows who are not entitled to any pension. In a short debate such as this is supposed to be, I wish to deal only with two lower deck pension points under Subhead B:


first, the lousy low rates of pensions still being paid to ratings who served in the Second World War; and, secondly, the scandalous position of the pre-1958 widows of ratings who received no Service pension at all.
I hope that we shall have some information tonight about this question: what will the Labour Government do about these two very important personnel matters? Both these problems, as has been said, have a serious adverse effect on recruitment, particularly in cases of a son drawing three times the amount of pension which his father draws for the same number of years' service. No longer is one of the main recruiting sources a son following his father, as happened in my family.
I now wish to say a few words about the check and the impudence of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), who, I note, is not in his place, but whom I attempted to inform that I would refer to his speech on Thursday last and his attack on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), over the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton, namely, parity of pensions.
It ill becomes a newcomer and a "nozzer" to our debates from the Tory Party to attack Labour Members, and some Conservatives, for our arguments over many years over this very thing, parity of pensions—which is what the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester attempted to do—when successive Tory Governments did nothing in 13 years to improve the scandalously low earlier basic pension of other ranks in all three Services. The crux of this problem is that ratings go to pension at 40 and the Pensions (Increase) Acts do not apply until the age of 60. There is thus a vacuum of 20 years for ratings, when no increase takes place, but no one else—Service officers or other Government employees—is so affected for such a long period.
The obvious solution, as the hon. Member for Sutton has said, is that there should be the same cost of living increase in the old and earlier pensions already in payment as there are in the new pensions to be paid. In other words, my complaint is that when Service pensions are considered and increased, the

increase is based on future requirements and nothing is done for past service.
I can deal with ratings' pensions from personal knowledge. When I joined the Navy as a seaman boy, my pay was 6d. per day, and the basic pension for an able seaman was ½id. per day pension per year of service. In other words, after 20 years, the basic pension was 10d. a day. Admittedly, there were additions of pennies for good conduct and halfpennies for petty officer time and farthings for leading seaman time.
I notice that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) is enjoying this and is laughing her head off, but shortly I will quote a current pension and how it is made up, and then perhaps the smile will go from her face.

Dame Joan Vickers: I was not laughing. I was saying that we had had the benefit of this speech for two or three years running.

Commander Pursey: What is the objection to that?

Dame Joan Vickers: None at all.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery) rose—

Commander Pursey: What is the object of making a speech? It is to try to get reforms. If one does not get them, one has to go on making the speeches. I have read speeches by the hon. Lady—and I do not want to discredit anything which she does—in which she has repeated her argument and has admitted doing so. There is no reason for me to say that I am repeating the argument. I am simply stating the current facts. Now I will give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).

Mr. Hooson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) an injustice. She is obviously enjoying the hon. and gallant Member's speech, and has done so for three years running, and she was looking forward to enjoying it a fourth time.

Commander Pursey: I have been too long in the House of Commons not to know when my speeches are being enjoyed and when they are being ridiculed. The hon.


and learned Member cannot use that bait to catch an old fish.
Here is an interesting point about my pension: this was the same basic rate as for my father and as for my grandfather, who fought in the Crimean War. In fact, it was introduced by William IV, in 1831, and continued throughout the century and later. These William IV farthings are still being paid, as I will show by an example in a moment.
I jump to 1919, after the First World War, in which I served, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). It may be that we are two of the few in the Committee today who served in the Navy in that war. In 1919, the Admiralty announced:
The basic rate of pensions will be 1½d. a day instead of ½d. a day for each year of service.
That was 1919, and those halfpenny pensions had a lifetime to run from that date. That quotation should satisfy hon. Members that this halfpenny argument is not a figment of my imagination.
Ten years later, however, pensions were reduced, and the weekly basic was started, giving only 8d. a week instead of 10½d. a week. The Admiralty suddenly realised that quoting these pensions by the day produced such an infinitesimal sum that the answer was to make it a weekly payment and then to reduce it to 8d. This 8d. basic pension per week continued until after the Second World War and is still being paid.
In 1945—I am jumping periods quickly—the Labour Government introduced a basic rate for all three Services of £1 6s. 4d. per week. But what was the result of that? It gave the R.A.F. other ranks only 1d. per day pension more than the 1919 basic rate of 25 years earlier. Hon. Members opposite who wish to start to study this problem of ratings' pensions should consult the full page schedule in HANSARD of 27th June, 1962, columns 149–150.
For naval pensioners the new 1945 rate of £1 6s. 4d. was no increase at all—it was 1s. 8d. less than the earlier 1919 basic which, with additions of 5d. and 3d. per day, brought the pension up to £1 8s. My Lords of the Admiralty graciously offered ratings the option of the old 1919 rate or the new 1945 rate. What a pension! What a scheme! A first

impression may give the idea that this year, 1965, all the 1945 rate pensioners will reach the age of 60 and receive the pension increase. This is not so. The 1945 rates were not increased until 1950, so that these low pensions of 1919 to 1945 will continue in payment until 1970, or later.
I will quote only one example—from an Admiralty letter dated 21st September, 1962, which is less than three years ago—of a petty officer's pension in payment today:
Your pension, is made up as follows: Service, badges and good conduct medal per day 3s. 2d., equals £1 2s. 2d. per week; 16 years' double petty officer's time at ½d.—4s. 8d. per week; five years' double leading time at ¼d.—8¾d. per week; giving a total of £1 7s. 6¾d. per week.
The Board of Admiralty, in its generosity, allowed £1 7s. 7d. a week. It gave him the benefit of the additional ¼d.
But who is this pension for? This is for a petty officer, the backbone of the Navy, the man on whom the admirals and the captains on the other side of the Committee depended for their success right through their careers. Yet in this year of grace, 1965, after Second World War service, a petty officer is getting less than 30s. a week Service pension. It is a scandal. Here are the William IV 1831 halfpennies and farthings in payment, over 130 years later. There are numerous other cases.
Every ex-naval officer on the Tory benches should hang his head in shame that petty officers and ratings, who have given the best years of their lives to the same Service, as they have, should be treated so shabbily when those officers themselves—and I say this without hesitation and admitting that I am drawing a pension myself—are drawing comparatively good pensions. From the other side of the Committee we have all these arguments for officers' pensions—arguments for the officers' widows pension being increased, but there has never been a worth-while speech made from that side about an increase in ratings' pensions and particularly about the lousy position of the ratings' widows who get no pension at all. I therefore appeal to the Minister and the new Labour Government to give sympathetic consideration to this peculiar position—of the other ranks in all three Services who have been pensioned early


in their lives, in their 40s and 50s—and to make a special pensions increase to remedy this wholly incredible state of affairs.
As has been pointed out, there is no other class of people in the country in a similar position to these ratings. I urge hon. Members to keep this to ratings because officers serve longer and consequently get their pensions increases earlier. I am not out to make a class argument of this and to distinguish between ratings and officers because I have taken officers into account in my earlier remarks. Because of the time available tonight, I must limit my remarks to ratings.
We ate in a completely different situation this evening when discussing this question than for some time past. Will we receive the support of the Tory Party's ex-officers, in their comparative affluence? That remains to be seen. We have never had their support in the 20 years I have been in Parliament. There is no question of my repeating my arguments because, after all, we have the Tory Party in opposition and not in the Government.
I welcome wholeheartedly the complete change of attitude by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of parity, and since this argument came initially from them tonight there is no reason why progress should not be made. I hasten to make a constructive suggestion. I understand that certain ex-Service organisations have produced a minor scheme of amelioration for some of the worst cases, for a start, which would cost only about £5 million. Since the Defence Estimates contain total expenditure of about £544 million, the amount would not be overloaded if it were increased by that £5 million. Indeed, it would round the figure off at £550 million and provide equity and justice for men who have served their country well.
I hope that we will hear nothing from the benches opposite about increased pensions at the top, for officers, because on present rates what we need is a reduction in the large disparity which exists between pensions at the top and those at the bottom. In a whole day's debate on Service pensions—on 25th May, 1962; and there was a second debate on the subject in December of that year—I made several suggestions.
I will not weary the Committee by quoting what I said, but, to paraphrase some of my remarks, I pointed out that we did not want "pie in the sky" from the then Conservative Government but "pie on the plate" from a Labour Government for the "old sweats" who had served in the war and fair shares for the matelots as well as the admirals and captains after their full period of service for the State.
I want now to talk about the problem of other ranks' widows who receive no Service pensions at all. Generally speaking, all officers' widows are entitled to a Service pension, and have been for many years. It is, therefore, iniquitous that all ratings' widows do not have the same entitlement, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support me in my pleas on this matter, even if they have been unable to support me in my earlier remarks.
This is obviously a pure class distinction; an example of one law for the rich, the officers, and another for the poor, relatively speaking, the ratings. Moreover, since 1958 other ranks' widows have been granted a Service pension. So we have the further iniquity that the widow of a man who died after a certain date gets a Service pension whereas the widow of another man, who died the day before, receives no such Service pension.
What has been the result in the past? A petty officer after 25 or more years' service to the State who was getting a paltry pension of less than 30s. a week could be pensioned on one day and die the next and all his 25 years' pension would be lost. Yet this pension was deferred pay, because it was always the argument of the Government and the Admiralty that the pay of the Navy and the other Services was low because of the pension.
What nonsense! What a position! Surely there is no question at all about it being high time that these two anomalous positions were cleared up and this multiplicity of basic schemes—and there are any number of them now; in terms of years, ratings and officers—completely scrubbed out and parity established.
Hon. Members opposite can call these remarks repetition if they wish. For my


part, I would have thought that I have given enough information and material to enable any amount of articles to be written on these matters in newspapers, journals and magazines. A good journalist could work from the beginning and go right through to the end, and then start again. One can adduce arguments on these matters left, right and centre.
Finally, I make this appeal to the Minister on behalf of the Services and their families. For goodness sake let us realise that the time has come to scrub this outdated business and have parity.

7.29 p.m.

Captain W. Elliot: I do not know to what extent it would be in order for me to follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey). Although at times hon. Members have represented the case for groups of pensioners or widows of Service men, I bluntly reject the general proposition that any of my hon. Friends, when speaking about Service pensions and pensioners, has ever done more than represent the position from the general point of view of all pensioners. be they officers or men.
I suppose that I am right in assuming that the amount of money shown in Vote 9 does not include a sum which would bring parity to pensions. I should like to know, therefore, if the Minister could say how much it would cost, in a Supplementary Estimate, if parity were reached. I am prepared, whether I am an hon. Member of the Government or Opposition, to recognise the difficulties inherent in achieving parity in pensions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Ian Fraser) said that there were differences between Service pensioners and other groups in the population. I agree, but I am certain that those other groups would not agree with us. In other words, I am sure that apart from the cost not only for the Services but for everybody else the difficulties of confining it to the Services would be immense.
We have already discussed the earlier Vote on pay, and I now only want to try to relate this present discussion to the earlier Vote. As I mentioned then, we have this year the biennial review of the pay of the Services. The reason for that is that as wages and salaries outside

the Services go up for various reasons, of which the cost of living is undoubtedly one, so the pay of those on the active list goes up by an approximately equivalent amount. The fact remains that pensioners suffer from increased costs of living just as much as do those on the active list.
As my hon. and gallant Friend said earlier, when, in the past, the pay of those on active service has been considered those people conducting the negotiations have had in mind only their own pay scales, and no regard has been paid to former colleagues who have left the Services. Those on Active service do not admit any responsibility for their colleagues, and I think that that is quite wrong, not only in the case of the fighting Services but in other cases, too. If one group of the community, whichever it is, scrapes the bottom of the barrel, and says, "We are now all right," we cannot produce the further enormous sums of money needed for other sections of the community. Those still serving cannot wash their hands of their former colleagues. They have not, of course, any direct power to do anything, but they have great influence, and should use it.
When new pay scales are negotiated for those on the active list, the Service pensioners should be considered at the same time. For instance, if the pay of those on the active list goes up by 5 per cent., consideration should then be given to the sum needed to put up the pay of the pensioners in the same way. It need not apply to all pensioners. It might not apply to those who had just left the active list, but it should apply at, say, 65 or 70—some age at which they feel the pinch as a result of inflation or because their pension, allotted under an earlier scheme does not afford them an adequate living.
If the Government should say, "We cannot give you more", the Services should consider raising that 5 per cent. for pensioners from the total sum allocated to those on the active list. If the 5 per cent. were given to pensioners aged 65 or 70, the cost might be 1 per cent. or even half of 1 per cent. of the award to the Services. I am sure that the Services would be willing to do this. It would be good from their point of view, because all retire eventually. It would


avoid this trouble when both sides of the Chamber have to keep going, perhaps for years, at a Government with only a limited amount of money at their disposal, to get them to produce more money for pensioners, which in their hearts they would be only too glad to give but which it is not possible to produce because the barrel has been scraped by someone else—

Commander Pursey: I intervene only to be helpful, and in order to get this point clear. Up to now, the Pensions (Increase) Acts have increased everyone's pension from the age of 60. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not got the right argument. The crux of the matter is—and I would not object to officers being included, who retire before the age of 60—that the ratings get no pensions increase for the 20 years between 40 and 60. Officers go at 45–15 years before the age of 60—and ratings go after 40 years. The trouble is the bracket below 60 which is not covered by any Pensions (Increase) Act at all. Once ratings are 60 they get all the increases, and are on parity with the present pension.

Captain Elliot: I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the intricacy of that calculation. I am quite prepared to accept what he says. I should say that no naval man who retires at the age of 40 has much difficulty in getting a job. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have a point there, and I would not rule it out. I am saying that as a result of the biennial review that takes place this year, Service pay will presumably go up by a certain percentage. As a result, those on pensions already at once begin to drop behind and, after a number of years, drop so far behind that hon. Members have to agitate very strongly until something is done about it. I want to avoid our getting into that position and I suggest that the Minister tells the Admiralty Board about this, and lets it think about it.

7.36 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I have taken part in many pensions debates, and I would pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has done a tremendous amount of work in this respect, as has

the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey).
I should like to know, first, why there has been a cut in the amount of money shown under Subhead B (1)—pensions, rewards, etc. Perhaps we can be told whether the pensions are to be cut or the rewards to be less. It seems an unfortunate moment to make cuts.
I would also draw attention to the question of the commuting of pensions. It seems quite easy for an officer to commute a pension, but extremely difficult for a rating to do so. It is very often the case that a rating coming out of the Service is anxious to put down a deposit for a house, or he may want to get furniture for a house he already has. I have written time and time again to the various Ministers concerned and, as I say, I find that it is fairly easy for officers to commute pensions but practically impossible for ratings to do the same thing. When a rating comes out of the Service at about 40, and probably has a good job to go to, one thing that he needs is some cash to put down for a house—that is the usual need—or to furnish a house which he has probably let while overseas, when the furniture may have been badly used. I see no reason for this difference in the commuting of pensions.
How do the present pension rates in the Service—and I think particularly here of ratings—compare with those given to civilians? We should try to get these things in proportion. Are the Service pensions lagging behind in that rate of increase, or are they almost on parity with civilian pensions?

7.39 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Perhaps I may at once deal with two of the matters mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). She asks why we offer less money for pensions on this occasion, but the figure shown does not mean that the pension rates have been cut or that anyone is getting less. The figure is just an actuarial forecast of what will have to be spent, and it is usually fairly accurate. There is no difference in the amount of pension any individual pensioner receives.
We discussed the commutation of pensions in our debate on Thursday, when


it was first raised. Clearly, it is something that must be looked at. It is a relic, it must be a relic, from the past, and I cannot see any excuse for it. Since that debate I have taken steps to see that the matter is pressed in the Department.
Those hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate, on a subject on which feelings are passionately held, have agreed on almost everything. They have agreed that in a very real sense this is related to manpower, for example. This is because if Service pensioners feel that they have had a raw deal they will be bad recruiters for the Service. That, quite apart from the humanitarian side of it, has given an urgency to what has been said today.
Hon. Members such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) have put the various points on which they feel most strongly—about the obsolescence, the tangles and the anomalies which are to be found in these Acts. I could not help agreeing wholeheartedly with my hon. and gallant Friend when he spoke about the ratings' widows who get no pension at all. I cannot see that this will be an easy position to defend for very much longer. The Committee will know that all these things are now once more being reviewed, and so they should be. The history of pensions goes back a long way. One Act has succeeded another, and as one Act succeeded another so anomalies have succeeded in quick succession.
It is essential that we should now really try to get these things right. I cannot make a promise about what the decisions will be when the review has been completed. I do not know whether

parity will be achieved. I can, however, say what the cost of parity would be, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). At a rough guess, at any rate, granting immediate parity for all three Services would cost about £25 million. If it were done for the rest of the public service, that would be a further £83 million. It is a sizable slice of money, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate.
The points which have been made, not only in this brief debate, but in previous debates and in previous speeches on the subject of pensions, will be studied very closely by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is charged with making this review. I hope that when the review comes out we shall be able to announce at least that some of the worst injustices have been removed.

Mr. Hay: The whole Committee will be very grateful to the Under-Secretary for what he has said. I rise not only to thank him, but also to say how pleased we were to hear that this review is taking place and to listen to the somewhat optimistic way, as I thought, in which the hon. Gentleman told us about it. I hope that the review will be speedy, because these issues have been bumbling around for quite a long time, as we know only too well. I hope that something can be done fairly soon to put this matter clear beyond any doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,324,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £166,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Navy has had a good run for its money today. We envy the Navy the amount of time it has been able to deploy. We envy the Navy in at least one other respect, because I imagine that the Under-Secretary will have listened with mixed feelings to the Minister of Defence for the Navy announcing the other day the introduction of the assisted house purchase scheme for various categories of naval ratings. The hon. Gentleman must have realised that, so long as the Navy has this scheme, the Army will very much want it, too. I appreciate that he manpower problems of the Army are not so urgent as those of the Navy. I appreciate that the enlistment terms of the Navy are quite different from those of the Army. I appreciate that the Army's housing problem is also somewhat different.
The fact of the matter is, however, that housing is a major problem for Army families and a major factor in Army recruiting. The Army is short of some of the senior technicians of the type who would benefit from this scheme. in the Estimates debate last Monday the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister of Defence for the Army listed some of these categories. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will appreciate that the introduction of the house purchase scheme for the Navy, and particularly for the Civil Service, will naturally arouse some flicker of envy in military hearts. Are any discussions under way with the Treasury for the introduction of a similar scheme in the Army?
Even more important for recruitment into the Army is the question of the basic rate of pay. Ministers have conceded that the present system of regular biennial reviews has worked pretty well. Can the

Under-Secretary assure the Committee that this system of biennial reviews will continue?
I note that it is estimated that the pay of the Gurkhas will be reduced by almost 10 per cent. this year, although the number of Gurkhas is to be slightly increased. No doubt there is some technical reason for this, perhaps a change in the age structure of the Gurkha Brigade. During my recent visit to Malaysia it seemed to me that some of the commanders there were showing a slight tendency towards overworking the Gurkhas. This is no doubt entirely due to the excellent military qualities of these troops. There is a tendency to think that they can go anywhere, that they can carry anything, and that they can fight for just as long as anyone at headquarters wants them to. I think that this tendency to overwork Gurkhas will continue as long as their military qualities continue. It looks as though it will be for ever. It would be a grave mistake to combine overworking the Gurkhas with under-paying them.
I note also that there has been a sharp fall in the amount of money required from other Governments for personnel lent to armies overseas. Does this mean that we are charging other countries, notably Commonwealth countries, less for the services of these officers and men and maintaining the number of seconded personnel, or has there been a sharp cut back in the number of personnel who are going out on these missions, because the amount recovered under Appropriations in Aid is going down by one-third this year? I hope that the answer is that we are charging less for these Service men rather than cutting the numbers, because, after all, the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence himself, in the debate last Monday, paid very great tribute to the contribution that these seconded officers and men made to international stability.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army one or two questions, first, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) about the Gurkhas. Can he explain why the pay for the Gurkhas has dropped by a small amount? Does this mean that


the actual number of Gurkhas has decreased? His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15th February said:
…the present Government have decided to stop playing about…and will leave the target at 15,000 men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February 1965; Vol. 706, c. 830.]
I should like to know whether that is a reduction in numbers, whether this target will remain as such, and whether he can explain the contradiction when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army said on 22nd February that 15,000 Gurkhas would remain as long as our present commitment to Malaysia continued. Is it the Government's policy that we shall continue to have 15,000 Gurkhas as long as the difficulties exist in Malaysia? Can he say whether the Government intend to reduce the Gurkhas once the Malaysian commitment ceases or once there is a working relationship between Malaysia and Indonesia?
If the Under-Secretary can answer those questions, it will lead to greater certainty. But it still does not explain how the sum has dropped from £2,190,000 to £1,980,000 in respect of pay. Can the hon. Gentleman also tell me how much is paid to Gurkha officers when they retire? I am referring to commissioned Gurkha officers who have served in the last war and since, and the various other ranks who are entitled to pensions. Is this payment continuing and how much is it? Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the pensioners are really getting the money due to them?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. Pensions do not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understand, Sir Samuel. I was hoping that as this Vote affects recruitment, the actual amount of pay was also relevant. However, I bow to your Ruling.
I move on to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any scheme to give extra pay to serving soldiers in the Gurkha battalions who go on leave to Nepal to bring in extra recruits, because this must be included in the £1,980,000 which is the amount of the Vote which we are discussing. Part of this amount must represent pay to the recruiters, if I may

call them that, who go on leave to Nepal, I think once in three years, and who are asked to bring back new recruits to the battalions. Can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance to these troops, with whom I had the honour to serve, that this figure will remain for a considerable time?
The uncertainty created is likely to be damaging to the morale of the Gurkha brigade, which is fulfilling an extremely onerous rôle. If one overworks these soldiers, good as they are, they are inclined to become stale and in time will become a wasting asset. I hope that the Under-Secretary realises that although the Gurkha always wants to serve Her Majesty the Queen to the utmost, there comes a limit beyond which one cannot go.
Can I also be told whether there is any new arrangement or agreement with the Government of Nepal as to where these soldiers shall serve? If they serve west of Suez, will they receive pay at a level comparable to that of their British counterparts? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has in mind any plans to bring a battalion to this country or, perhaps, to serve in the strategic reserve?
Moving from the question of the Gurkhas, which is of considerable importance, to a matter which is not quite so important, I wish to refer to the strength of the Gibraltar Regiment. I notice that the Department is paid contributions by certain Colonies. A contribution is paid by the Colony of Gibraltar, presumably towards the upkeep of the Gibraltar Regiment. May I be told what its strength is and whether there are any plans for increasing the Gibraltar Regiment? Following the Government's recent attitude and their mistakes in that theatre, I think it would be a good thing to increase the Gibraltar Regiment and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would find willing volunteers. Perhaps the Barbary apes are included in this item. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) wishes to intervene.

Mr. James Ramsden: No.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has rather more knowledge than I of these matters.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We are being called upon to sanction a large sum of money. While most countries have reduced their Army estimates, we have increased ours. We have heard that America and the U.S.S.R., the two great Powers of the world, have reduced their Army expenditure. I notice, too, in The Guardian that France is now spending less on her army than in any year since 1926, and even Germany has cut her defence costs. Yet our military expenditure bill continues to grow.
I understand the situation this year. We must keep the present number of soldiers in our Army and we must maintain the present expenditure because there is to be a large-scale review of all our commitments, and next year we may find that the Estimates will be cut. I hope that is so. I hope that next year the same Government will be in power and that my hon. Friend will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and say, "We have reduced our expenditure on the Army and this Vote is down by at Least £100 million." I hope I am not too optimistic, but if we do that we shall only be doing next year what the other Powers that I have mentioned have already succeeded in doing.
I quite understand that we have a large number of overseas commitments which cannot be done away with overnight, but I should welcome some definite and positive sign or statement that this Army expenditure and the number of men in this Vote would be reduced. At present everybody is thinking of Germany and there are considerable diplomatic discussions between the Prime Minister and Dr. Erhard about the possibility of expenditure in Germany being reduced. This Vote contains a considerable sum for Germany. I am certain that the time has come when if a public opinion poll were carried out on the desirability of continuing or maintaining a substantial Army of about 50,000 men in Germany that poll would show that the country is now ready to reconsider the whole position. I hope that the Prime Minister will not be bullied or browbeaten in any way by either Dr. Erhard or, more important—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. How can the question whether

Dr. Erhard is bullying or not be in order on this Vote?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I will confine myself to asking the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to keep in order.

Mr. Hughes: Dr. Erhard, of course, is not in the Vote, but his policy is. His policy is reflected in the fact that we have 50,000 men in Germany. I will not mention him again, but these Estimates call for a substantial number of men and the time has come when the people of the country would welcome any announcement by the Government that the number was to be reduced by 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 or even 50,000. Indeed a popular daily paper with a considerable circulation, which frequently reflects the opinion of people of this country, a paper with which I do not often agree, the Daily Express, has for years now been carrying out a campaign to bring the soldiers home. I believe that public opinion is ripe for this and I hope that the Government will not hesitate to cut these commitments, realising that the danger of an attack from the Russians on the Western Front is over. Indeed, Lord Montgomery, who is perhaps our greatest authority on military operations in Western Europe, has said many years ago now that these commitments should be cut and has said that N.A.T.O. will become a racket. I believe, therefore, that if the policy which I have referred to were adopted and these 50,000 men were brought home—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order. I fail to understand how it can be in order to mention these matters when the Vote deals with pay as such, regardless of where the troops are, whether Germany, Malaysia or even Timbuctoo. I do not see how the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) can develop his present argument on this Vote.

The Temporary Chairman: I wish that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire would confine himself to pay and not to the numbers of troops.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Mallalieu, but I cannot dissect pay from numbers. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has himself been talking about Gurkhas for a considerable time I cannot see why I


cannot talk about British soldiers in just the same way as he has been talking about the Gurkhas. I think that this perplexity must have occurred to you, Mr. Mallalieu, and was in your mind when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North drew your attention to the matter.
If I have to put my argument in terms of £ s. d., I can do so. It is that the money that is being spent on the pay of the Army of the Rhine could be reduced if the soldiers were brought home. I assume that if the 50,000 men in the Army were brought home and returned to civil industry they would no longer be on the Army Estimates. I am glad to notice that apparently the hon. Member for Cornwall, North is nodding his head in acquiescence.
We should turn our attention to helpful and constructive suggestions on how we could reduce this considerable sum in the Vote. I have submitted to the Committee one practical suggestion, whereas the hon. Member for Cornwall, North brought forward a suggestion which would increase the cost of the British Army, because he wants more Gurkhas recruited. I have never been able to find justification for the country needing Gurkhas at all. After all, they are mercenary soldiers and I do not think that there can be any great argument for employing mecenaries in any part of the world.
There are other places where this expenditure is incurred and other hon. Members have spoken about Malaysia. I know the difficulties experienced by my hon. and right hon. Friends when we ask Questions about Malaysia in the House. The argument is that we must be prepared to spend this money because we have a military commitment in Malaysia due to a commitment entered into by the previous Government to go to the assistance of Malaysia. The time has come when we should consider to what extent we can afford to give help to other countries. The new slogan now appears to be "East of Suez". Why cannot Malaysia defend herself? Surely if a nation values her independence she should not need to get other people to defend it.

Mr. Julian Snow: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee whether or not he is differentiating between other countries of the Commonwealth and Malaysia?

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me develop my argument. I fail to see why we should give the people of Malaysia the idea that this country can be perpetually sending military help, because small countries in other parts of the world have been able to fight and maintain their independence without any aid from a nation in another hemisphere. I refer to the Irish. They are a small nation—

Mr. James Allason: On a point of order. I thought that we were here to discuss the Army Votes, and many of us wish to take part in the debate. Is it in order to start discussing Ireland? The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) seems to be ranging all over the world.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) knows that I am watching this matter carefully. He had better leave it to me.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. It seems rather strange that we should be discussing whether troops should go to help in Malaysia, Timbuctoo, Red China or anywhere else. I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman relates this to the actual Vote for the money spent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I have two questions to answer from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) concerning various parts of the world in which Gurkhas might or might not be situated.

Mr. Hughes: I do not find the hon. Member for Cornwall, North very helpful. He talked about sending troops to Timbuctoo or to Red China. If we are to do anything like that, I shudder to think what the Army Estimates may be in another five years.
I was examining the commitment of money and men in which we are involved in Malaysia. I have put Questions to the Minister asking what was the annual expenditure in giving assistance to Malaysia, and the sum stated in reply was £50 million, of which a considerable amount is borne on this Vote. It works


out at about £1 million a week. I should like the review of military expenditure which is to be carried out, and on which great hopes were set this weekend by the Minister who represents the Admiralty, to include an examination of how we can get rid of this expensive commitment in Malaysia.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep more closely to pay. He is continually sliding off, if I may so put it, into a discussion of whether the troops should exist, not whether such sums as are mentioned in the Estimates should be paid to existing troops.

Mr. Hughes: My argument is that the sums in the Estimate would be considerably reduced if we ceased or reduced our commitments in Malaysia. I do not wish to pursue the matter further, but the sum next year might be even bigger still. It might continue to grow. Guerrilla warfare is a very expensive form of warfare when a country like ours is committed to carrying on military operations over a large area of jungle. There might have to be a very large army there, and it could be—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is persisting in discussing the question whether these troops should or should not exist. We are discussing the pay for the troops which do exist, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to that.

Mr. Hughes: I suggest that the numbers would be reduced if the pay were reduced. We cannot consider these Estimates without coming to the conclusion that men in uniform operate somewhere. I find it very difficult to think of Army Estimates with no soldiers but only ciphers, and as this Vote is a Vote of money for the expenses of the Army, I thought that I was justified in arguing in that way. However, I pass from Malaysia.
It has been argued that we must be ready to maintain an Army and incur military expenditure to go to the assistance of India. I dissent entirely with this view. We cannot keep a standing Army, at the expense set out here, on the assumption that it has to be trained and equipped in order to be sent on some occasion to India. I point out to

the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, who may conceivably have some influence on the committee which is to review this matter, that India successfully rid herself of the invader by entirely different methods without having an army. The idea that India's independence can be maintained only by our having an Army, the Estimate for which is set out here, is a delusion.
We have to consider whether we can bear this expenditure in view of the fact that our competitors in other countries do not have such large commitments overseas. Take Sweden, for example. I refer to Sweden only because she has no overseas commitments and does not have to spend such a large part of her income on Army Estimates. When I go about the world, I discover that Norway, Holland, Germany, and many of the leading countries of the world whose economic position is better than ours, do not have these considerable commitments overseas. I want this expenditure reduced.
I give one more illustration. France is a military nation with a great historic military tradition, but France has not these large military Estimates which are a burden on our economic life. She has cut her commitments in Algeria. The result is that France is now able successfully to compete with this country. Indeed, I am not sure whether we are not actually borrowing money from France and from Germany today in order to meet the bill for our Army Estimates.
Although I may have been on the border line in discussing foreign policy and defence on the Army Estimates, I have suggested to the Minister certain means by which these substantial commitments which we are asked to accept tonight could be reduced. I hope that my words will not have fallen on deaf ears but that the Minister will be able to communicate some of these stray ideas to the people who are to review our military expenditure. I look forward to his saying triumphantly next year, "I have appeased the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. We have cut our expenditure in Germany and in the Far East, and the Estimates are now down. The country is relieved of a big burden, and the money which would have been spent on the Army Estimates


will be spent on housing, hospitals and the other things which we need more".

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) drew attention to the strange difference between the Answers given by the Secretary of State for Defence on 15th February and by the Deputy Secretary of State on 22nd February, in reply to a Question which I put down. I wish that my hon. Friend had been here at this time a week ago, when I drew attention to the anomaly and pointed out also that the number of Gurkhas was not likely to exceed 14,000 rather than the 15,000 mentioned in the Secretary of State's answer on 15th February.
I asked what the strength of the Gurkhas for the coming year was forecast to be. I hope that, even if the Minister is not prepared substantially to increase recruiting of Gurkhas so that the target strength of 15,000 can be approached, he will at least, for next year and the year after, propose an increase in the Estimates in order to allow the Secretary of State's pledge to be met. This will not please the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I cannot go along with him in his proposal that the pay of the Army should be reduced and that there should be a 60 per cent. Cut—if my arithmetic is right—in the Vote now under discussion.
The local overseas allowance also comes under this Vote. I should be very grateful if the Minister could tell us a little about the allowance position in Berlin and Libya, two places where considerable trouble has arisen over the allowance in the past. The reason is given on page 107 of the Estimates, where, in the definition of "local overseas allowance", it is stated:
This allowance is paid at varying rates in aid of the extra expense to which officers and soldiers are subject at certain stations abroad.
There will be hollow laughter when those words are read at certain stations, because it is well known that the allowance does not meet the appalling extra expense which occurs in such places as Libya, where the cost of living shoots up almost overnight. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me how

it comes about that the overseas allowances for officers are to be substantially less in the coming year, whereas those for other ranks are to be substantially more.
I should also like to know why there is discrimination against officers taking part in Arctic or tropical experiments. It is shown on page 105 that, for some obscure reason, while there is an allowance for other ranks taking part in these experiments, there is no allowance for officers. It seems a little unfair.

8.21 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish to relate my remarks particularly to troops in Germany and Cyprus.
We know that the troops in B.A.O.R. are certainly not overpaid for what they are doing, and we also know that there is to be a very important Royal visit in two months' time, which I am certain will please not only our troops but the people of Berlin and Western Germany. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what it is intended to lay on for Her Majesty? I hope that what I am saying is sufficiently related to the justification for paying our troops. I hope that I am allowed—I think that in part years we have been allowed—to discuss how the troops we are being called upon to pay, and pay willingly so far as I am concerned, will be employed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Following the precedent which you laid down during my remarks, is this discussion of the Queen's visit to Germany in order?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will recall that a large amount of latitude was given to him, and I am not giving a small amount of latitude in this case.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Mallalieu. I am not in any way criticising the number of troops, or their being in Germany. What I am discussing is what they do when they are there. The Royal visit will be almost unique in our history. When a Head of State visits another Head of State, it is unusual for that Head of State to visit his or her own troops on the way.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Can you direct me to any item in the Estimates containing the expenses of Her Majesty's visit?

The Chairman: I cannot, and that is why I am allowing only a passing reference to the subject.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: What I am asking here is quite simple, whether the work that will be done by British troops during that visit will be the sort of work that ought to be done. I feel that some of those who are rather anxious to show off the full glory of spit and polish may take the opportunity to do so. I believe that what ought to be shown to Her Majesty is that B.A.O.R. is in a continual operating rôle patrolling the frontier of the Iron Curtain. I would hope to see Her Majesty given the fullest opportunity of seeing this rather than everybody dressed up in blue patrols and No. 1 dress in the turrets of tanks.
It is much more important that Her Majesty should see the British troops on the Rhine doing the job they are there to do, though perhaps in Berlin we may have to provide a no less impressive display than would be given to any other Head of State visiting and inspecting his or her troops.
We are told in the White Paper that in Cyprus today there is one infantry battalion and altogether 1,000 men as part of the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us to what extent we are entirely covering the cost of those men as part of that force. To what extent is the cost of the force pooled? Is there an additional expense to us, or a smaller expense? The total figure in the Vote is £166,400,000. Does that include all the expenses relating to the pay of our contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus?
I should also like to know to what extent a man who feels, for example, the same way as I do about the United Nations, can opt out of serving in a United Nations force because that is not what he was recruited for? He was recruited to serve Her Majesty, and the terms of service that he undertook were not to the United Nations. I should very much like to know whether when a man signs on he is expected in any way to commit himself for the future at any time to serve

in a United Nations force. My feeling is that if I were called upon to do it I would never do so, but others may not share my views. I regard the record of the United Nations in the history of the world as appalling, but I realise that my view is not wholly shared throughout the world.
Nevertheless, I think that I am entitled to ask to what extent the pay which we give to our troops is in any way, or some of it, going to the United Nations as an organisation. I want to make sure that the Vote goes solely to the British Army and that it gets the full benefit of it. As far as I am concerned, we never have yet paid—we probably never shall do so—our troops what they really deserve. The Army has always been a bad employer, always having tried to get more work out of people for less money. We all know that it is the Treasury which puts pressure on to make it do that.
The tradition of the Treasury towards the Armed Forces has been deplorable all down the ages. There has at least been some improvement, thanks to the Grigg Committee's Report. There is now a regular improvement as the cost of living rises. Nevertheless, my experience of the Army has always been that if it can get someone to accept an acting temporary or lance rank, and do the job of the next rank up, it will always do so without increasing the pay in the course of doing it. Few other professions would stand for it. The fact that the Army has stood for it for so long and does such an excellent job is to its immortal credit.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I will endeavour to deal with some of the number of questions which have been asked. Most of them were about the Gurkhas rather than about our own United Kingdom soldiers. As to the Gurkha Brigade strength, I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) on 22nd February. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was planned to recruit 900 men and 100 boys into the Gurkhas during 1965. That is what we intend to do. That is all that the training and recruiting organisation at present existing in Nepal, India and Malaysia can cope with. The addition of 1,000 will


cover the numbers that we have in mind for the Gurkha Brigade.
There are at present 14,400 men in the Gurkha Brigade. The hon. Member will realise that the numbers vary considerably throughout the year, because recruiting takes place at one period of the year and men who have terminated their service fly back to Nepal on two occasions during the year. Thus the numbers tend to fluctuate to a certain extent. The 900 men and 100 boys whom it is intended to recruit in the coming 12 months, and who are all that the training organisation can cope with, will ensure that there is little variation in numbers during the next 12 months.

Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is speaking about a six-month training period and that if it could be duplicated it would be possible to take in twice as many men during the 12 months?

Mr. Reynolds: It is a six-month training period. The Gurkhas come down in the autumn and join the battalion, having carried out their training, in the late spring. The training takes six months. As the hon. Member knows, the approximately 1,000 men whom the Estimates Committee, in last year's Report, pointed out were engaged on recruiting have a lot of other work to do also. Taking that work into account, together with the recruiting and training facilities, we are convinced that the number we propose to take—900 men and 100 boys—is the number that the recruiting organisation can properly and adequately deal with.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about the recruiting team in Nepal? If so, what other work have they to do? As to the 1,000 men, they will come down after the monsoon, which is when they are recruited, and, presumably, they will be flown into Malaysia and do a six-month training course. There is no reason why there should not be two six-month periods of training during the year and, therefore, an additional 1,000 recruits. Why not do this?

Mr. Reynolds: It is quite possible to train more people if one is prepared to provide additional facilities and men.

The hon. Member is well aware that of the staff of 1,000 who are involved in the recruitment of Gurkhas, a number are in Nepal and a number are elsewhere along the pipeline along which the Gurkhas come. They are engaged in the payment of pensions, for example, and we have a hospital there. I explained in an earlier debate that a number of the 1,000 are concerned in doing the type of work which in this country would be done by a local authority, such as the disposal of refuse and work of that nature.
The work is spread over the year. The number who can be properly recruited and trained is the number given in answer to the Question by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead on 22nd February of 900 men and 100 boys. That is the position. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) can sit there and mutter that it is not true, but it happens to be true at the moment. We can deal with 1,000 a year.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to the overworked Gurkha forces. We are all fully aware of the ability, courage and general military bearing of the Gurkha soldiers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Secretary of State met a number of Gurkhas when he was in Malaysia, shortly before the hon. Member for Beckenham. I can only rely on what my right hon. Friend reported to me at that stage: that whether they were overworked or not, the Gurkhas seemed to be in exceedingly high spirits.
If Gurkhas serve in Europe or elsewhere outside the Far East, the question arises of their rate of pay. When they serve in Europe or elsewhere outside the Far East they are given special rates, which are rather less than a British soldier gets but are much more closely related to the rate of pay for the British soldier. During the current financial year, there were plans to have some Gurkha troops in this country, but they were required in the Far East. Because, however, of the higher rate of pay which they received in this country, provision was made in the current year's Estimate to cover that higher rate of pay. There are no plans in the coming financial year for Gurkha soldiers to be stationed in the United Kingdom. Therefore, a higher rate of pay does not have to be met. That is the sole reason for the £200,000 reduction in the Estimate during


the coming financial year as compared with the current year, because the higher rate for Gurkha soldiers in the United Kingdom will not have to be met during that period.
The Gurkha troops are at the moment fully engaged in the Far East, and I do riot think that I can add to what my right hon. Friend said—that as long as our present commitment in support of Malaysia remains substantially unchanged we have no intention of altering the Gurkha Brigade. The hon. Gentleman may not be completely satisfied with that answer, but, nevertheless, he may be more satisfied with that than with the attitude which the previous Administration took with the Gurkha Brigade, for they reduced its numbers.
The hon. Member for Beckenham referred, I think, to quantity surveyors. [Interruption.] He did not mention them? I am sorry. I have a note to reply to that point. He made a cross-reference to the recently introduced housing allowances for naval ratings. We are well aware of this, but there is no similar scheme at present contemplated for the Army. We have in the Army an arrangernent whereby, in conjunction with certain building societies, serving soldiers can have deductions made from their pay to put money on one side to buy houses for themselves when they are serving or when they leave the Army. But the main factor here is that the Army has accepted responsibility for many years for endeavouring to provide housing accommodation for serving soldiers and their families. The Navy has only comparatively recently, I think, adopted its scheme. We have a large number of married quarters, and we have not exactly the same problem, but this is something we are watching, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to watch this.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cornwall, North referred to the Gibraltar Regiment. No particular change is envisaged here. There is a small cadre of British officers there to assist in training the Gibraltar Regiment, but at present there is no proposal in mind to decrease or to increase or make any other change in the situation which has been in operation for some considerable time.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even have raised the question of pay, and I can certainly give

an undertaking straightaway that the biennial review, which came into operation some four or five years ago, will continue in the normal way. The actual work of doing the calculations will be starting very soon, if it has not already started. But for a member of the previous Administration, which, having carried out a biennial review, decided to give only half of it last time, decided to give one half in one year and make the soldiers wait another year for the other half, to have raised the matter at all was, I think, a little unfortunate. I certainly give the undertaking that the biennial review remains exactly the same, and, as I said, the work, if it has not already started, will be starting very soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) repeated a number of the points he made in his speech the other day on the Army Estimates. I assume that he reiterated them to give added strength to them. Unfortunately, he informed me in the debate on Vote A that he would not be available at the end of the debate, and so I did not reply to him on that occasion. I am not sure whether he expects me to reply now on this occasion. I was rather horrified to hear him refer at one stage to the fact that the French had managed to reduce their defence costs, and I was rather astonished and wondering whether he was stating that we should pay our Regular professional Army which we have now the sort of pay which the French conscript soldiers get. The pay of the French conscript soldier is exceedingly low, and we have now a professional all-Regular Army.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was not referring to that at all. What I was arguing was that if we followed the French in reducing our commitments, as they have done in Algeria, we should not require such large forces.

Mr. Reynolds: At one stage my hon. Friend did in fact say that the French had still substantial forces and very much more cheaply than we. I am pointing out that now we are dealing with pay and that one of the reasons for the difference in cost is that the French conscript soldiers have less pay than our soldiers in the Regular Army which we have at the moment.
The reduction in appropriations in aid for seconded personnel from the Army was raised again by the hon. Members for Cornwall, North, and Beckenham. There has been a reduction in the number of officers and other ranks seconded to assist in the training of other armies, particularly in the number of men seconded to the independent Commonwealth countries in Africa. At the same time, however, the current year's Estimate is slightly inflated because there is a contribution to include there towards the cost of services provided in Brunei. The figure includes arrears payments as well as the current year's Estimates. Thus, if there is a reduction in the number of men, there is also an arrears payment included in the current year's Estimates which makes it look rather greater than is really the case.
Overseas allowances are kept continually under review to try to make sure that they are fair. I know that there are always complaints about them. Reference was made to Libya and to Berlin, but one can go to other stations as well and hear grumbles about the rate of overseas allowances. What has to be looked at is the fact that some of the things available for normal purchase are very often different in terms of price from those obtained in the United Kingdom. Some of the things are considerably cheaper overseas than they are here. All too often one is quoted things where the prices are higher than United Kingdom prices, but too often one is not told the price of such things as spirits and cigarettes, which are cheaper. One has to look across the field and try to keep the position up to date.

Mr. Allason: The Treasury always takes into account the price of cigarettes and spirits. This is not much satisfaction to a wife with small children who do not drink or smoke.

Mr. Reynolds: The cost of living index, the retail price index, and everything else would be destroyed completely if one were to relate them directly to the spending habits of every individual. It is possible to work an index only on an average, as is done here for the retail price index. This is something which we consider all the time. I cannot at this stage give the hon. Gentleman details

as to why officers' payments are down and other ranks' payments are up. This question is related to the number of people in different stations, and the rate of actual allowances paid at that time.
I was asked questions about the United Nations force in Cyprus. As I announced during the debate on Monday, the extra cost to the United Kingdom of the Cyprus operation has so far amounted to £2 million, but this extra marginal cost does not include the pay and clothing of the soldiers involved. The Vote that we are discussing includes the net cost of paying British soldiers actually in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. The £2 million additional cost excludes pay and clothing and getting them to Cyprus and keeping them operational there. The cost of our logistic support from the Cyprus base to the United Nations force amounts to about £2 million, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that arrangements are made to make sure that we get reimbursed for that. The cost of paying and clothing our own officers and men is borne on the Vote. It has to be paid anyway, whether they are in Northern Ireland, on Salisbury Plain, in Germany, or in Cyprus. We do not claim any reimbursement in any shape or form, but the £2 million additional cost we get back in one way or another.
I think that that answers the points raised during the debate, and I hope that the Committee will accept the Vote.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for the information given by the hon. Gentleman about Cyprus, but can he say anything about the B.A.O.R.? Can he answer nothing that I put to him on that subject?

Mr. Reynolds: Various military units are making arrangements to give a proper reception to Her Majesty the Queen when she visits Germany and Berlin. I cannot go into detail, because I have no information available, but if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so, I shall endeavour to obtain it and send him details of the arrangements being made by the Army in Germany for the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. I know that arrangements are being made.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the Minister, but can he give an


assurance that full opportunity will be taken to show B.A.O.R. in its operational rôle, with a minimum of ceremonial, outside Berlin?

Mr. Reynolds: I have no doubt that during this visit the Army will want to show itself in its normal operating rôle, but it must be remembered that this visit of Her Majesty will, at the same time, provide considerable enjoyment for spectators—both British families and German civilians—and there is bound to be a certain amount of parade work that one would not normally expect to be carried out were it not for the fact that a visit of this nature was going on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £166,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £24,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 130,00, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 125,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 199,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on oil the 31st day of March, 1966.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Goodhart: We had a fairly extensive discussion of the Territorial forces in Committee on the Army Estimates last Monday. I hope that the Government have put down this Vote this evening to give themselves a chance to say something more about the future of the Territorial Army than they did on that occasion. Then, every time Ministers opened their mouths on the subject it sounded as though another 1,000 men were being sent home.
As many of my hon. Friends then pointed out, it is important that members of the Territorial Army should know as precisely as possible just what their commitments are. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government intend to do away altogether with the proclamation procedure, which is relevant under the bounties paid under this Vote. They

would be unwise to do so, because that procedure is a considerable diplomatic weapon. When, some years ago, the American Administration wished to show their determination to stand firm over Berlin they called up part of the American National Guard and sent it to Germany. We, also, might want to indicate our national determination to stand firm, by the relatively easy method of issuing a proclamation.
I notice with pleasure that the amount of money to be spent on Territorial training is to be increased this year. During recent years a great deal of such training has been handled in a most imaginative fashion, thanks largely to the efforts put into this subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). Only recently we have seen groups of Territorials returning from Aden and also Canada, where a number of Territorials have had a rigorous introduction to Arctic training. I hope that the extra sums which are being devoted to Territorial training this year will be spent in similar imaginative schemes. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us something of what the Government have in mind in this respect.
All the money spent on the Vote will be wasted, however, if the review of the rôle of our reserve forces does not come up with the right answers. At the moment, we cannot ask what answers have come up because, presumably, no answers have been forthcoming as yet. We can ask what questions are to be asked, and I should like to know how sweeping the review is to be. I should like to know who is carrying it out and how soon we can expect to have a definite answer from the Committee on what the role is to be.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I mentioned the Territorial Army and the review which is being carried out during the debate on Vote A, last Monday evening. I do not think that there is a great deal that I can add tonight to what I said on that occasion. The review of our defence commitments is primarily being carried by the Secretary of State for Defence in collaboration with other Ministers concerned, as our commitments cover the whole field of foreign affairs and Commonwealth relations, and a number of people are playing various parts and looking at different sections of the problem.
As I said on Monday, during the past few weeks I have visited several Territorial detachments. I was with the Queen's Surreys last Sunday at Kingston and elsewhere. I spent an afternoon with them on the ranges. I shall be visiting the 44th Parachute Brigade at the Duke of York's headquarters on Wednesday evening and I shall be visiting other units in the London area and units camping in the Dartmoor area and elsewhere during the camping season.
I am endeavouring to find out as much as possible about the Territorial Army and, as on previous occasions, I have not found any reluctance among officers and men to talk about its future. That has been the main topic of conversation among them for the last six or seven years—what its rôle will be, what equipment it shall have and other problems.
Naturally, we do not want deliberately to try to hold up decisions on the future of the Territorial Army. That is bound up with the review and the Reserve Army which will be necessary. Once we have decided on the nature of the Regular Army needed to maintain our commitments, it will be obvious to everyone that a Reserve Army will still be required. I think that the Territorial Army will play a part in that Reserve Army. I cannot say more, except to repeat that despite the shortage of equipment for the Territorial Army, for which I and my hon. and right hon. Friends cannot accept responsibility, and despite the legitimate grumbles which I hear almost every weekend, the spirit of the Territorial Army among both officers and other ranks is exceedingly fine.

8.54 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I wish to probe a little deeper the question of the rôle of reservists with a United Nations force. When the terms upon which many people went on to the Reserve were decided the United Nations did not exist. The Government having got approval to call up reservists to serve specifically with the United Nations forces, I wish to know whether it is possible for any reservist who does not wish to serve with a United Nations force to have the right to refuse to do so.
It seems to me that the terms of reference for many people have been changed. There are many who have an abhorrence

of doing anything in the name of the United Nations and I do not see why, because they once joined the British Army and went on the Reserve, they should have to serve in a United Nations force and be called up with the reserves to do so.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I should like to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to some details. Perhaps he could tell me how the amount in Vote 2, Subhead C is broken down between the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations and the Cadet Forces, because this Vote is made to meet the general expenses of administration of the Territorial Army and the Reserves. There is a grant to the Cadet Forces and also a grant of £4,200 to the Council of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. If one turns to page 85 one also sees that there are grants for the Army cadet force and the combined cadet force of £830,000 and £360,000. Why does this appear twice?
What is the difference between these? The Army Cadet Force is not a paid body. The boys in it are not paid. Therefore, this must refer to the personnel training them, the adult officers and noncommissioned officers. If that is so, it seems an astonishingly high amount—£830,000. In Subhead C we are talking about £7 million, I notice that Appendix III, to which all this refers, says that where the buildings are let—and the receipts are under Subhead Z on page 85—the Government makes a grant back under Subhead C of the 80 per cent. money they have in receipt to the Territorial association concerned with those particular premises.
I see that the actual amount under Subhead Z for which the premises have been let has gone up by £15,000. I have also heard all over the country that the amounts which the Territorial Army is now charging to other organisations in its areas have gone up in some cases by about 100, 200 or 300 per cent. This has caused great hardship to the other organisations who rent the premises from the Territorial Army or from the cadet forces. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether this is deliberate policy which will be continued by his Government of charging greatly increased amounts for the hire of these premises when they are


not required by the Territorial Army, the Reserves, or the Cadet Forces. If so, could he tell us what are the total gross receipts he expects to get from these organisations? What will the increase be and why has it not gone up further from £135,000 to £150,000?
May I turn to Subhead D(3), which refers to the purchase and the rent of land and buildings? Here the sum has dropped by £10,000—from £140,000 to £130,000. I assume that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that the Army has no intentions of buying any more premises for the Territorial forces and that this is purely a question of the rents dropping. In this instance, could he tell us how it is that if there has been a drop in the cost of renting land and auxiliaries, a higher rent is charged for these buildings to the other organisations who hire them from the Territorial Army? It seems to me a strange way of doing it.
Finally, under Vote 9, last year we spent £15,000 on the Malta Territorial Army. This year we are spending nothing. This must presumably mean that it has been disbanded. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us why this has been done?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked a number of questions. Subhead D(3), deals with purchase and rent of lands and buildings. There is bound to be a certain amount of fluctuation, depending on the amount of land we buy. We do not always acquire exactly the same amount of land at exactly the same prices every year. The amount will fluctuate, depending on how much land is purchased in any one financial year. I do not think that it is fair to make any comparison between the current year and the following year to the extent of £10,000. The figure is bound to fluctuate, depending on how much we buy and the cost of each piece of land which we buy.
I was asked about the Malta Territorial Force. Malta, being a completely independent country, is assuming responsibility for that force. I cannot say what is happening to the force. The responsibility for decisions as to its future will be for the Malta Government.

The hon. Member asked me for information about the subletting of Territorial Army and Army Cadet Force premises, pointing to an increase of £15,000 in the Estimate for the forthcoming year compared with that of the current year. The responsibility as to whether to let Territorial Army property to other users is entirely a matter for the County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association. The Association decides whether to let or not. If it decides that it will not let, that is an end of the matter. If it decides that it will let, there are certain regulations governing the way in which charges to be made for letting must be calculated.
The charge must cover the full additional cost of the letting. There is also a small percentage addition which can be made, part of which is retained by the Territorial Association, the other part being shared among units which use the drill hall concerned. There is some money which goes to the units using the drill hall and some money retained by the Territorial Association. The amount covering the cost is reflected in Subhead Z(1).
I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention that this is a complete change of policy by the present Government.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I did not say that.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member asked me specifically whether it was future policy of the Government to increase the charges in this way. I imagine that the recent spate of reviews by county associations of the charges which they make to organisations renting drill halls was sparked off by a letter sent by the Ministry of Defence on 4th October last, 11 days before the General Election. This drew their attention to the fact that, while premises were not insured when used by Territorial Army units, because in general the Government do not insure their own property, they were not covered as far as the Ministry of Defence were concerned if the premises were used privately, and that arrangements would have to be made separately for a specific insurance to be taken out.
The letter went on to inform them that arrangements had been made by the Territorial Army Advisory Council for a special rate of insurance to be obtained, which was 5s. for each day's


use irrespective of the value of the property. The letter told them how to take advantage of it. It appeared that on looking at their charges a number of associations suddenly realised that the charges which they were making were considerably below the economic charge, and they started revising the rate. This was all done before the General Election.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank the hon. Member for being so courteous in giving way and for the detail of his explanation. If it can be shown that in some areas some welfare organisations are being harshly dealt with, through no fault of their own and no fault of the Territorial Association, following this directive, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving an additional grant to that area or to that association to help over the difficulty in cases in which some organisations have not been able to hire the hall because of the increased charge?

Mr. Reynolds: I must go back to the beginning. It is for the local county association alone to elect whether to hire out premises. Any question of allowing asociations to charge rents lower than required to cover the cost would mean a reduction in the appropriation-in-aid and an increase in the Defence Vote for the subsidy, by allowing a lower rent, of voluntary organisations which by no stretch of the imagination ought to be subsidised from the Defence Vote. It may be that they ought to be subsidised from other Votes. It is possible that in some cases they can obtain subsidies from other Votes, or from local authorities. But in suggesting that an association should let at less than the cost of the letting, the hon. Member is asking for subsidies from the Defence Vote, from the Vote which we are discussing, for voluntary and other organisations which may have no connection whatever with defence. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I could accept that that should be done. Other ways would have to be found of meeting the point. I imagine that assistance could be obtained for a voluntary organisation of the right nature.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the subject of grants to Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations and I agree that there is a considerable increase under

this subhead. This grant is split, I believe, into 13 headings, covering the general administrative arrangements from the Territorial associations' point of view. He also referred to the two items under Subhead F, for the Army Cadet Force and Combined Cadet Force. They do cover separate things. One covers buildings and general functions while the other covers the actual organisation, training, and so on. The same applies to the Territorial Army. He will also note the items under Subheads C and D. I hope that I have answered most of his points.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not know whether the Minister intended to answer in the form of a dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and himself, but I hope that he will answer the question I asked about the liabilities of reservists towards the United Nations forces.

Mr. Reynolds: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reservists' liabilities have not altered. We are looking at the method involved here, as was announced in the Army Estimates debate and in the general defence debate, but at the moment the liability of reservists to recall is exactly the same as when we passed the Act two or three years ago. There has been no change. Once they are called up they can be used in the way decided for them, in the same way that Regular soldiers can be used, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, for example, as part of the United Nations force in Cyprus. There has been no change in the recall position of reservists since that Act was passed, when the previous Government were in office.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I thank the Minister for going a long way towards answering my question, but is he able to say whether, in the event of a reservist being called up to serve in, say, a United Nations force, he would have the option to say that he did not wish to do so? Would he be relieved of his reservist obligations in that respect only?

Mr. Reynolds: If he were to say so on compassionate grounds then those matters would always be looked into, otherwise such a reservist would go to his unit in the normal way.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £24,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 130,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 125,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 199,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

Vote 8. Miscellaneous Effective Srvices

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I am surprised to see an 8 per cent. drop in the welfare Vote in view of what is an extremely important element in the Army, particularly for the families, wives and children, who need a lot of looking after, and in view of the wonderful work that is done by the various welfare organisations. I am, therefore, disappointed to see this 8 per cent. reduction. But by comparison, compensation for losses, damage and so on goes up by 20 per cent. I hope that this is not a reflection on the Socialist administration of the Army—8 per cent. drop on the welfare Vote and 20 per cent. up on he damage that is liable to be done.
There is a considerable increase in the cost of the South Arabian Federation Regular Army. I have seen these troops in action and they are doing an excellent job, but is it right that the British taxpayer, through the Army Vote, should be paying for this? I understand that a portion of the cost comes on the Colonial Office Vote, but should the Army Vote carry a certain amount of this cost since these troops are entirely for use in the Aden Peninsula? I cannot understand why the Army Vote should be meeting such a substantial amount of this cost.
Turning to the item of fees for civilian doctors for the examination of recruits, the medical requirements for recruits vary very considerably. There is a constant stream of statements to say, "You can now accept a chap with one blue eye and one brown eye, which you could not do last year, and a chap lacking a finger,

as long as it is the right sort of finger, can still be enlisted."
It is very difficult for civilian doctors to keep up with these changes. As a result, a civilian doctor employed to "vet" a recruit may reject a suitable man, whom the Army does not then get, and on another occasion accept as a recruit a man who should not have been accepted. Considerable expense is involved, because the man is brought to the Army, examined again, and found to be unsatisfactory. He may by that time have given up his job because he thinks he has been accepted—and then out he goes again.
A great deal of misery is caused in that way, and it would be far more satisfactory if, whenever practicable, an Army doctor were to examine recruits. It is not possible in very remote areas where very small numbers of recruits come in, but in large centres of population it is perfectly practicable to have an Army doctor examine a recruit at once. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that Army doctors should be used in this way, thereby relieving civilian doctors of an arduous and rather awkward duty which they find very difficult to fulfil.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I did not quite follow all the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), but he has referred to the Socialist administration of the Army. My own view is that the Army is now having a chance to see how its affairs can be organised by common sense and not just from the point of view of the orderly room at Chelsea Barracks. There is a chance now to introduce certain reforms that have been far too long delayed by the former Administration.
Referring to Subhead B—publicity and recruiting services—I often wonder whether the Army recruiting posters one sees really go to the nub of the matter of getting more recruits. Some posters are very good and indicate some degree of professionalism; but, working on the assumption that we want as many recruits as we can get, I do not think that some of the major matters are even touched on.
Mention has been made of the excellent family welfare services, but some of the regulations, well known to the public,


and which become known to those who are contemplating entering the Army, militate against the family interest. This is not the time and place to go too deeply into the question of the lack of provision by the previous Administration of sufficient married quarters. I only know that in my postbag I get a great many letters complaining that men and women are separated because the units are moved.
I want to take this opportunity to refer to a matter that should be mentioned in publicity, and that is what happens to his family when the soldier gets into trouble. Does the Army look after that family? I have recently referred to my hon. Friend a case that caused me some alarm. It is the case of a soldier who committed a military crime—he was absent without leave—and was sent to the "glasshouse". His wife was in England and he was in Germany. His wife's marriage allowance stopped. That may be in accordance with Army Regulations, but what happens in such a case is that, straightaway, the wife goes on National Assistance.
These regulations should be amended in the light of present-day thought and present-day employment possibilities. In civilian life, if a man commits an act of indiscipline in the firm where he works and gets the sack, he can find a job next day; he will not be out of work for long. If a soldier commits an act of indiscipline, his wife suffers immediately. This matter should be considered. Why should the wife have to go to National Assistance? Why is the marriage allowance automatically cut off? I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to study this matter to see if something more sensible can be worked out which is in line with modern conditions.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has said about Subhead B—Publicity and Recruiting Services—but I cannot follow him into the case of his constituent who got into trouble. When a soldier becomes part of Her Majesty's Forces, he signs a contract and accepts the conditions which are set out in that contract, namely, that he will serve, and serve where he is asked to serve. It was

unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say what he did about the previous Administration. The Army does its best, and has done its best, to provide married quarters if the soldier is married, accommodation for his wife and children, and schooling facilities as well. Great strides were made by the previous Administration, as I think is generally accepted throughout the country.
I, too, want to ask the Under-Secretary what plans the Government have for using the £220,000 under Subhead B for publicity during the coming year. This Vote
Excludes expenditure on large scale Press and poster advertisements and recruiting films".
What recruiting campaign have the Government in mind? I have been greatly impressed by the various demonstration units that go round during the summer months and in the autumn and put on demonstrations of equipment, give drill displays, and so on. This is greatly to the advantage of recruitment. What plans do the Government have for keeping up the recruiting figures?
Subhead D, on which the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth touched, is £360,000 for welfare expenses, which is a reduction of £31,000 on the previous year. I imagine this is for grants for welfare services and work which has been done on the kind of case of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, and perhaps grants to S.S.A.F.A. etc. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain what this point is.
Subhead E—Compensation for Losses, Damage &c.—shows an increase of about £200,000. How does this amount subdivide between traffic accidents and accidents arising during training? This is compensation for accidents which occur during training which is paid to farmers and civilians, presumably for damage to their property. Does this include payments made overseas—for instance, in respect of accidents arising during training in B.A.O.R.? B.A.O.R. in the past had claims made against it, and I am sure that it still does, for damage caused during training exercises. Is this included in this sum? How does this sum sub-divide between traffic accidents and other matters? Perhaps it would be simpler if I left it to the Under-Secretary


to tell the Committee, because I can see that he is absolutely bursting with his usual enthusiasm to tell me.
Subhead H refers to the National Army Museum. I took great interest in this some time ago. What progress is being made? The Museum was at Sandhurst. There were plans to move it to London. What progress is being made? How is it intended to spend the £3,500?
Subhead J covers research, design and development work by industry. We are told that research and experiment is being
carried out by universities and other research bodies.
This is a very healthy sum—£4,380,000. Can the hon. Gentleman say what kind of research is being carried out by the research bodies, and what bodies these are? Is the research on existing items of equipment or on projected types of equipment? If the latter, one can understand if the hon. Gentleman is reticent, but I should like to know exactly what the money is being spent on.
If I may now refer to Subhead M, Other miscellaneous expenses, I see a sum of £380,000 for the purchases of maps, which amount is almost the same as last year. These maps are purchased from the Ordnance Survey Department. This seems a tremendous amount of money and I should like to know whether these maps are for use at home or overseas.
There is an item—
(3) Part Office charges for cashing postal drafts.
I have never understood why this should stay at £180,000. It seems a very large sum for cashing postal drafts.
Next there is an item "Sundry charge" amounting to £646,500. There is no indication of what the money is being spent on.
There is a note stating that this item
Includes provision for hospital services, field intelligence …
Can the hon. Gentleman say what this fairly large sum will be spent on?
Exactly the same thing occurs under Subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid. Under "Other receipts" there is a sum of £640,000. This and the preceding

item virtually cancel each other out. This last item
Includes recoveries in respect of private use of official telephone facilities, sale of newspapers…
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why this item has not been properly sub-divided. as it used to be?

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has obviously been enjoying himself going through every one of these items, and I shall endeavour to answer some of the points which have been raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Army Museum which, he said, used to be—and I can assure him still is—housed in the old premises at Sandhurst. I think that I can say that the trustees of the museum will agree to its removal elsewhere in the not too far distant future to a place which, I think, the hon. Gentleman will find acceptable.
As to the use of civilian doctors for examining recruits in the Army, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), one of our main reasons for using civilian doctors is that there are not enough Army doctors. The medical branch is still under-recruited. There has been a considerable improvement in the recruiting of doctors in the last couple of years following changes which were made, but we certainly have not got enough Army doctors even in the urban centres. We therefore rely upon the use of civilian doctors.
As to Subhead C, the service seems to work well. Civilian doctors have a lot of other work to do and they have to keep abreast of the regulations governing the work they do in the Defence Department. If there is any doubt about any particular case one can always refer to them for further examination, but, so far as I know, there seem to be very few complaints about the system.

Mr. Allason: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the number of men who have been rejected shortly after joining the Army on medical grounds? My impression is that the number is rather high.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot give the percentage at the moment. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know. In the debate on Vote A, I gave the


percentage of wastage of recruits, which I think, was 18 per cent. That was the total wastage of recruits, and the medical part would, therefore, be comparatively small. There is, of course, the other side of the argument. One sometimes has a complaint from individuals that the doctors have failed them when they ought to have passed. There is a procedure for dealing with those cases if necessary.
The apparent reduction from £391,000 to £360,000 under Subhead D, dealing with welfare, is in fact, strange though it may appear, an increase, because the £91,000 for 1964–5 included £100,000 as reserve sum for the possible introduction of a television service in B.A.O.R. After further investigation we reluctantly came to the conclusion, announced in the House a few weeks ago, that we could not proceed with its introduction, but we are keeping the matter under constant review. This sum is not in the present Estimates and, therefore, there is an increase of about £70,000 on the actual amount spent in the current year.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seemed to think that because Labour was in office far more damage would be done during Army training and that this was one of the ways in which Socialist administration of the Army would manifest itself. Actually, the Vote for next year will contain sums in respect of compensation for damage which occurred before 16th October last. The Estimates can be related to the amount of training that we know will take place in a particular year and, therefore, the possible amount of damage that might occur and the amount of compensation which it may be necessary to find.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) referred to publicity for recruiting, which covers the type of things which he mentioned, the major television and Press advertising, the provision of things for unit displays and recruiting offices and matters of that kind. The programme of such activities for the ensuing financial year will not be greatly different. There is a marginal difference compared with the last year or two.
My hon. Friend referred to certain aspects of the Army Act and particularly to what happened to the family of a

soldier if he became liable to certain types of punishment. I cannot go into this in great detail tonight, but the Army Act itself comes up for revision next year and if my hon. Friend makes many more speeches of this kind he will be talking himself on to the Select Committee which will then have the task of going through the Act and making recommendations to the House.
We do this every five years, and the time to deal with the matter to which my hon. Friend referred is when the revision of the Act comes up and the Select Committee can obtain all the information and have a look at it. We are looking at proposals which may be brought forward when that revision comes up.

Mr. Snow: I assure my hon. Friend that I do not want to attract any more work. Nothing is more depressing to the potential recruit than not to be sure that his wife and family will be looked after when he has been recruited. I am addressing myself to that point in the matter of publicity.

Mr. Reynolds: We shall have the opportunity, when the Act comes up for revision, to consider the question of what happens when the soldier gets himself into trouble. I have in mind as well the point which my hon. Friend now mentions.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked about the provision of maps. The item in the Vote is for the provision of maps which the soldier uses occasionally to go from one place to another. There is nothing more sinister than that in this item.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This seems to be an excessive amount of money. Is the hon. Gentleman buying from another Department? As he knows, the Ministry of Agriculture produces Ordnance Survey maps which the Army uses at home. Is this a paper transaction or are maps being bought for troops overseas?

Mr. Reynolds: The item includes lots of maps, both for home and overseas, and we pay the cost of these to other Departments. They cannot be expected to subsidise us, nor we them. The item covers detailed maps of one kind or another and the cost is virtually the same as the previous year. There is only a very slight increase.
I turn next to Post Office charges made for the encashment of drafts at the post office. The Post Office, although not a fully commercial concern, was put on a commercial basis by the previous Administration and it makes charges for the services which it renders. This item represents the charge which the Post Office makes for the work it does in this connection.
As regards the sum of £646,500 in Subhead M (6), there is a brief reference to what is covered in the sundry charges. The same point arises as regards the £661,000 on the other side. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are now following a practice which has been growing up over the years of not giving quite so much information in the Estimates. They have been somewhat compressed. and this is continuing an earlier decision made by the previous Administration.
These Estimates have come out in a new form, and this item is a collection of relatively small amounts which, in total, add up to quite a considerable sum. However, it is not really necessary, I suggest, to specify them all. If the hon. Gentleman really wants the information and would care to put a Question down. we shall be only too pleased to give him an answer.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Perhaps the Minister will write to me if he does not wish to go into it now.

Mr. Reynolds: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if he really wants the information.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I should not have asked for it if I did not.

Mr. Reynolds: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was enjoying himself in going through the Estimates.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about Subhead K, the cost of the South Arabian Federation Regular Army. We have treaty arrangements there, not entered into by the present Administration, and we contribute over 20 per cent. to wards the cost of the Regular Army there. As the Committee knows, there has been and there is still taking place an expansion of that Force, and this explains the increase in the Vote under this Subhead.
Subhead J, which refers to research, design and development work by industry, shows a drop from £5,076,000 to £4,380,000. I have announced in the debate on Vote A last Monday that, while there was a 15 per cent. drop in the Estimate for the following year there would, in fact, be a 15 per cent, under-spending in the current year. I have since obtained more information, and the under-spending in the current year will be considerably more than the 15 per cent. It is estimated now that not more than £4 million will be spent in the current year, so there is an increase shown as printed in the current Estimate. We have gone very carefully into the Estimate to pare it down to cover the amount which we think will actually be done during the coming 12 months.
This Estimate covers quite a wide field. Quite a lot is spent on research and development on vehicles, for instance, in the motor industry. This is not work of a kind which our own Department is equipped to deal with, but it is something which the motor industry has special facilities for, and quite a lot is covered by that kind of work.
Work is going on also on weapons, instruments, ammunition, explosives and engineering equipment. A lesser amount will be spent in some other directions, dealing with certain aspects of chemical and biological warfare. A considerable range is covered, and we believe that the amount actually in the Estimates this year will be the amount required to be spent. Looking back on experience over past years, there have been considerable under-spending, on these and some other Estimates, and we believe that this is a realistic amount.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1966.

Vote 9. Non-effective Services

Motion mode, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,840,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Goodhart: Appendix I of the Army Estimates refers to two types of male officers who get less than the basic rate of pay. One is a dental second lieutenant. I must admit that I do not mind very much if he gets less than the basic rate of pay, because 20 years ago a dental second lieutenant did grievous damage to one of my teeth.
The other type is a full colonel quantity surveyor in the Royal Engineers, who, when he is drawing his full increments, gets 4s. less than the basic rate for an ordinary colonel drawing his full increments. I believe that this is the last time that this anomaly will appear in the Estimates. I understand that all colonel quantity surveyors in the Royal Engineers are to be discharged in the coming year; they will all be retired, and so there will be no colonel quantity surveyors left.
I understand that there are only nine of these officer quantity surveyors still in the Army, so that only nine persons are affected by this compulsory retirement. But they are rather worried about what they hear of the negotiations going on about their retirement terms. I have heard that they are to get considerably less in the way of terminal grants than were offered in the 1957 White Paper to those officers who wished to take a "golden bowler". Surely it is not right that eight years later officers who are coming to the premature end of their military service should be offered substantially less—perhaps £2,000 less. I can tell the Under-Secretary that, although only nine officers are involved, this matter is being watched with considerable care outside, because this is the first time that Ministers have had to stand up and negotiate with the Treasury on behalf of a group in the Armed Forecs who are becoming redundant, and it will not be the last time. Persons outside will be watching carefully to see that good terms, and terms not less than those obtained in 1957, are obtained by the present Government.
I turn to the smallest item in the Vote, which is Vote D, for Polish ex-Service men. Last year the Estimate was raised from £50,000 to £75,000. Ministers of the last Administration were attacked for their parsimony, and it was said by members of the Opposition that at long last justice ought to be done by this small group of Polish ex-Service men who had contributed

much to the defence of this country in its hour of need. The case was very eloquently put from the Opposition benches in those days.
Now we find that the £75,000 in last year's Estimate has been cut by £10,000 to £65,000 by the very people who pressed for much more generous treatment. This is not the only instance in which there has been a reduction in real terms by those who in the past have called for greatly increased payments. Looking at the whole Vote one finds that in real terms there has been a reduction compared with the amount of money paid out last year. The actual increase in the Vote is 1·935 per cent. compared with last year, which represents a substantial loss in real terms.
From this Box throughout last year, the Opposition, as the party opposite then were, pressed for vast increases in this Vote. I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on 14th December. He told the Committee:
I then had the task, the very pleasant task, of being the spokesman for the Labour Party at the Dispatch Box on the last two Army Estimates and of making this pledge in most specific terms, which was that we would take the first opportunity to raise the pensions of the retired Service people to what they would have been had the man retired upon the latest pay scale"—
in other words, parity.
The hon. and learned Member went on to say:
I was authorised to give that pledge"—

The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the debates of this Session? It is not in order to give the quotation unless it is from another stage of these debates.

Mr. Goodhart: One could say that it was, Dr. King. At least, the hon. and learned Member went on to point out that he had discussed that pledge with the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, and with the then Opposition spokesman on defence. Mr. Gordon Walker, and that this had been specifically approved by the present Secretary of State for Defence, who was sitting beside him at the time he was making that pledge.
As the hon. and learned Member said:
We do not discard an undertaking of that sort merely by discarding the spokesman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 76.]
When this pledge has been brought to the attention of Ministers opposite, they have answered by saying that a review was taking place. No doubt the Chief Secretary, whom I see in his place, is one of those who is taking part in the review, which, we heard this afternoon, is being conducted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What are the terms of that review? Do the Government accept that the words used by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton constitute a pledge and commit them? If so, is this commitment to be found in the terms of reference of the inquiry? We should like an answer to that this evening.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I wish to ask three short questions. First of all, about the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. We see that there are vacancies there, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider with the hospital authorities making maximum efforts to ensure that the vacancies are filled at the earliest opportunity, because I am certain we all want to see the complement kept to the full at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.
Secondly, is he aware of the difficulties we have had in the past over a complication in the pensions of officers, in that, when an officer wants to commute part of his pension he has to submit the ground on which this should be done? In the past, as at the moment, the decision on the submission is taken by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on the advice of their advisers in the Department. The point at issue here is the fact that a lot of people feel that the Department is judging matters which it is not qualified to judge. The Department may say that the grounds put forward in the proposals are not a good business proposition or, at any rate, are not good business.
Would the hon. Gentleman look at this point to see if it is possible to set up an independent panel of advisers to advise himself and his right hon. Friend? I am certain that this difficulty arises not only in the Army but in the Royal Air

Force and the Royal Navy as well. I think that, if the hon. Gentleman did this, he would find that retired officers, when putting forward applications to his Department, would feel that their applications would be properly dealt with by people able to understand and assess the business possibilities of the officers' proposals, and the reasons for their wanting to commute part of their pensions.
My last question arises on appropriations in aid and pension contributions for Commonwealth and other Governments. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the Committee that where and when changes take place in pensions because of circumstances in this country, such as the cost of living going up here, or because there is depreciation of money, he will make the strongest possible representations to overseas Governments to see that officers receiving contributions from those overseas Governments get comparable increases in their pensions from those overseas Governments?

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Allason: I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said about commuting pensions. As I understand it, the vast majority of officers are entitled to commute up to 50 per cent. of their pensions without inquiries being made, but when it comes to other ranks there is very close inquiry as to how the money is to be spent. I think there is an undue amount of paternalism taking place here. It seems to be a pity that there should be difference of treatment between officers and other ranks to this degree in this matter. Therefore. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to assure us on this and tell us that a new procedure will be adopted in the future on commuting.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question or two about the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and about the in pensioners. How much is the basic pay, and how does one arrive at the various rates according to circumstances? How often are these rates reviewed, when do increases take place and in what circumstances are they made?

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: It is perfectly clear, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) says, that nine officers who


are quantity surveyors are involved. The transfer of this type of work from the Army Works organisation to the Ministry of Public Building and Works took place under the previous Administration. That has, in fact, left those officers with us, although the work is being carried out by another Department.
The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that discussions are going on about the exact compensation terms to be offered in these cases. The present circumstances are rather different from the "golden bowler" scheme of 7 to 8 years ago. Then there were a large number of officers who were being induced to leave the Army because of the rundown of the Army. There was the problem of them all coming on to the labour market at the same time and of trying to get jobs. In this case, however, we have nine officers, and even if they all came on to the labour market on the same day they would not have an appreciable effect on it. As I say, we are still negotiating terms, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know the position in clue course.

Mr. Goodhart: They are going on to a small labour market. They are all qualified quantity surveyors, and nine quantity surveyors thrown on to the quantity surveyor's market may swamp it.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not think that I can accept that. Once the negotiations have been completed. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know the terms.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) asked about the pensioners at the Chelsea Hospital. He asked that we should fill the vacancies which exist. To the best of my knowleds there are no vacancies at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman reads Appendix X he will see that the Royal Warrant provides for 588 people to be accommodated there. The hon. Gentleman says that there are fewer than that number there at the moment. The Estimate is based on the average number expected to be there.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I have visited the Chelsea Hospital about three times in the last year. The hon. Gentleman will find that there are vacancies there, and all that I was asking him to do was to use his good offices to see that they were filled.

Mr. Reynolds: There is a waiting list for the hospital and the governors meet every six weeks to consider the position. I understand that it was an historic occasion last week when two Ministers, the Paymaster-General, who is the Chairman, and myself, were there. We have to be careful not to confuse what the Royal Warrant says with the number of vacancies which actually exist for people to move into.
The hon. Member for Beckenham referred to the position of officers and other ranks who retired several years ago, and the need to review the pension scales which they now enjoy. There is nothing that I can add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in reply to questions during the defence debate, again during discussions on the Army and Air Force votes, and what was said this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy.
A review is being carried out by the Government, and when we have come to a conclusion about what can be done an announcement will be made to the House. I cannot go any further than that. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain his impatience. We have been looking at this for only a few months. The problem has existed for the last thirteen years.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: The problem has existed for many years, but a certain amount has been done. Two years ago something was done to help widows, but not enough. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that his party's letter to the Officer Pensioners' Association gave a specific undertaking about what would be done? I think that the country is entitled to hear what is being done, and when.

Mr. Reynolds: The House, the country, officers and other ranks will know the result of the review which the Government are carrying out when the review has been properly carried out in detail. When that has been done, there will be a report to the House, to the officers, to the other ranks and to the country as a whole. We have been in office for four and a half months, and the review is under way. It is being carried out, and the result will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Goodhart: May we take it that what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not constitute a commitment by the Government?

Mr. Reynolds: A review is being undertaken to see what can be done. It is not a question of saying that a colonel who retired 25 years ago should get the same pension as a colonel who retired last week. Over the period terms of service and length of service before getting a pension have altered, and all these points have to be considered. Once the review has been completed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement to the House. There is a great deal of difference between considering the principle and looking at the minutiae of detail involved in doing anything. All this is being done now.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When the hon. Member's party wrote to the Pensioners' Association they surely must have studied the problem beforehand?

Mr. Reynolds: The problem has been studied by many hon. Members on both sides, and by all the parties, for many years. Now it is actually being looked at by the Government. That is the improvement that has taken place since 15th October. We want to see what can be done in this case.
I was also asked to look at the position with regard to commutation. It must be realised that the majority of people who retire from the Services are in receipt of a pension, and because they have earned a pension they have also earned a considerable lump sum, which is paid to them on retirement. As for other ranks, if a small amount of money is required by way of commutation to assist, say, in the purchase of a house, it is usually granted automatically, but if anything further is required, justification is asked for.
In my view the present system operates well. I am satisfied with the advice that I have been given, and I do not accept that specialist advice should be brought in.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Several cases have come to my knowledge affecting both officers and other ranks in my constituency who have put forward business propositions which the Minister's hon.

Friend has turned down. I have merely asked the Minister to see whether it is possible to bring in an adviser so that these people are not only fairly treated but are seen to be fairly treated, and so that their business propositions are properly assessed by people who are fit to judge. Much as I like the hon. Member, I do not give a fig for his judgment.

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member has been doing a lot of work on the Estimates this evening—reading them just before he has made his speeches. I do not deal with these matters myself, nor does my right hon. Friend. Advice is available to us in the Department. Whether or not the hon. Member cares a fig for the advice that is available in the Department, my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied with the way in which the system is operating at present.
Pensions are awarded for services rendered, and are intended to enable the individuals concerned to be assured of a certain level of income which they have earned during their service. Every time a commutation takes place that income is diminished, and it can result—if a business venture goes wrong—in the individual concerned becoming a charge on public funds. That possibility has to be guarded against, and the interest of the individual also has to be protected. As I said, I am satisfied with the present system. I understand that no provision is being made for any commutation in respect of the pensions of Members of Parliament.
As for overseas pensions, I will bear the point in mind. Where provision is possible we will do all in our power, but it will not apply in every case.

Mr. Goodhart: The hon. Member has done well in trying to answer a great many questions, but he has not touched on the point of Polish ex-Service men. May we have some explanation why the £75,000 has fallen to £65,000?

Mr. Reynolds: I am afraid that Polish ex-Service men are a diminishing number.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,840,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in


aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the Remuneration of Teachers Bill and to the Science and Technology Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Short.]

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(COMMITTEES TO CONSIDER REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, after "and" insert:
(subject to the following provisions of this section)".

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
May I suggest, this Amendment being introductory to the next one and the three Amendments after that being consequential, that it would be convenient to consider the next four Amendments together with this one. They are: In page 2, line 2, at end insert:
(4) A determination of the Secretary of State whereby a body which is for the time being represented on a committee constituted under this section will cease to be so represented (except in a case where that body will have ceased to exist before the time when the determination is to take effect) shall not have effect unless it is embodied in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Any order under the last preceding subsection may be revoked by a subsequent order made by the Secretary of State.
(6) Any power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) of this section

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
In line 3, leave out "such".
In line 4, after "State" insert "under this section".
In page 5, line 27, leave out "preceding provisions" and insert "provisions of sections 2 to 4".
The purpose of the Amendments is to ensure that a body represented on the negotiating committee under the provisions of Clause 1 can be deprived of its representation only by an Order made by a Statutory Instrument and subject to annulment pursuant to a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is the effect of the first and third of the two new subsections to Clause 1, proposed in the second of the five Amendments. The second new subsection enables an Order depriving a body of representation to be required by the Secretary of State, thus enabling representation to be restored to it, and an Order under that subsection will not be subject to the annulment procedure.
I do not think that I need detain the House long on the reasons why I ask for the acceptance of the Amendment. As hon. Members will be aware, the position of my right hon. Friend on the composition of the negotiating committee is that he would prefer both panels—the employers' panel and the teachers' panel, to be composed by agreement of the bodies concerned. In fact, in relation to the machinery to be set up under the Bill the Local Authorities Association has already agreed on the membership of its panel. Agreement in the case of the teachers' panel has not yet been possible. Therefore, the Secretary of State has to have power under the Clause himself to determine, where agreement is not possible, the actual composition of the panel, the bodies represented on it and the members which each should have.
We have always taken the view that this should be something to be done with great civility and without the need to legislate each time. Clearly, circumstances could arise which could lead to the membership of one panel or the other having to be changed. For example, the fact that the London County Council will cease to exist will mean that this body will no longer be represented on the employers' panel. This will be non-controversial in


the sense that the Inner London Education Authority would be represented instead.
Discussions which have taken place, particularly the debates in another place on this Clause, have convinced the Government that there was need for more formal procedure if the Secretary of State came to the point of deciding that any body on either side of the Committee should be deprived of membership without the body wishing to cease to belong to the Committee. This, again, seemed to us to be a point which would hardly ever occur, but if it did it would, presumably, be subject to public controversy and debates in both Houses, and a Resolution would result.
To allay certain fears this and the other Amendments were introduced, giving effect, as I have said, to procedure by which, if this took place, there must be a statutory Order subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I think that we on this side of the House will regard this set of Amendments as embodying a reasonable compromise.
After the Bill had passed through most of its stages in this House, the National Association of Schoolmasters made it clear that it felt strongly about the arrangement which was proposed. In the account which the Minister of State has already given to the House, he has fairly laid out the reasons which persuaded the Government to change their mind and to introduce this Amendment, though he made only discreet and glancing references to the causes of the Government's change of mind. In fact, of course, the National Association of Schoolmasters felt so strongly about the matter that it threatened to strike, and it was a strike which almost took place.
There has been a good deal of discussion in another place about this question and a great deal of work was done. Lord Iddesleigh expressed the hope that a schoolmaster instructing his class on civics would find a good word

to say, as a result of all this, for the second Chamber, as a body which is at least occasionally useful. I am sure that we could echo that claim. I think that a great deal of useful work has been done on the Bill in another place. I hope that, in its amended form, it will enable the reconstituted negotiating committee to proceed happily and satisfactorily with its work.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) The Education Acts 1944 to 1964 and this Act may be cited together as the Education Acts 1944 to 1965".

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I submit that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss this with the subsequent Amendment, which is consequential upon it.
These are minor Amendments which do not in any way affect the substantive provisions of the Bill. They are necessary only because the Bill was passed through this House last year and a formal provision is necessary to make sure that, when the Bill becomes an Act, it is considered as part of the series of Education Acts listed in the Bill. The wording has to be slightly different, because there was already an Education Act, 1964, on the Statute Book and it was originally thought that there would be a second Education Act, 1964.
The wording now substituted makes allowance for the fact that the Bill will become an Act in 1965 and not in 1964. That is the only purpose of the two Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Schedule 3.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ON REDISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES OF EXISTING ORGANISATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 28, after "shall" insert "(a)".

10.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the Amendment is introductory to the next one, I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 11, line 31, after "Council" insert:
and
(b) apply to officers and other persons taken into the employment of the Science Research Council subsequent to the coming into force of the provisions of section 3(2) of this Act, to work on activities taken over under that subsection from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science (whether or not while in that employment they cease to be engaged in those activities)".
These are Government Amendments, which do not affect the main purposes of the Bill. They make it possible for new staff recruited by the Science Research Council and employed initially on activities taken over under Section 3(2) of the Act from the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science to be given terms of service which include membership of the Atomic Energy Authority's pension scheme. They further enable persons who enter the Atomic Energy Authority's pension scheme to remain in that scheme if subsequently they are transferred to duties under the Science Research Council which have not been taken over from the National Institute. The power given by the Amendment is permissive and not mandatory, because Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1959, is permissive.

Mr. Airey Neave: The staff of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science will be delighted with the decision of the Secretary of State. It is interesting to note that on 20th January I moved an identical Amendment, except for a few words, and that it was

rejected on the ground that it would create various anomalies. However, the Government have now seen the light. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Snow:
However, the Government accept the force of the argument put forward by noble Lords that the close proximity and long association of the Rutherford Laboratory with Harwell and the Atomic Energy Authority creates special circumstances and that there might be recruiting and other psychological difficulties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th March, 1965; vol. 264, c. 24.]
That is exactly—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Neave: Before that intervention I was telling the House how glad I was that the Government had come to the same conclusion as I had reached when I moved my original Amendment in identical form.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is very important that the recruiting to the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science should be kept up to the highest level and that it would be very dangerous to lower that level. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, who took the Bill through the House of Lords on behalf of the Government, expressed exactly the same views as I had expressed. I am glad that this has been accepted. It will be welcome in my constituency, where all these things are taking place.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: We cannot allow the Amendment to pass without a certain amount of misgiving, first, because of its effect and, secondly, because of the way in which it was argued or put across in the House of Lords.
Its effect is to discriminate in favour of nuclear phycisists as opposed to any other kind of scientists employed by the Science Research Council. It discriminates in favour of scientists employed by this Research Council as opposed to those employed in an engineering, chemical, medical, or any other kind of research establishment. It seems an extraordinary discrimination to make when setting up a new science organisation, particularly when it is set up by a Labour Government.
I agree that its effect is desirable in so far as it removes an anomaly internally, within the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science, but I remind the House of the arguments adduced from the Government Front Bench when rejecting an Amendment of this sort at an earlier stage, both in this Chamber and in another place.
We were told on 20th January that the Amendment would go too wide that it would create a specially privileged group of technicians, executives and clerical staff, that the Government were anxious to have transferability but that they would be hindered if the Amendment were adopted. The noble Lord, in justifying the rejection of such an Amendment in another place, said that the whole question of pension rights—as they affected mobility between Government services, industry and universities and within industry, between one firm and another—was being actively considered by the Government.
The noble Lord went on:
I do not think we shall find a good solution until we have gone into the matter much more deeply than any of us has at the moment; but for the present I much regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment." [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd February, 1965, Vol. 263, c. 791.]
That was at 8.15 p.m. during the Committee stage. At 8.24 p.m. an undertaking was given to have another look at the Amednment, but I agree that it was an undertaking given without commitment.
On Report the general principle was still maintained that an employing organisation should not offer better terms to some of its employees for comparable work done by other employees in similar circumstances. This seemed to be of great importance from the point of view of the whole staff of the Science Research Council in the longer term. However, the Government accepted the Amendment because, they said, they knew that the noble Lords were speaking not only with the weight of their experience but with the weight of the experience of those who did this sort of work.

Mr. Neave: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Amendment was originally moved by Lord Bridges, who

is Chairman of the Governing Board of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science?

Dr. Bray: Yes. I was about to draw attention to that. The Government pointed out that the noble Lords
…have been speaking not only with the weight of their own experience but with the weight of the experience of those who actually do the work … No Government can lightly ignore the feeling of scientists, old and young, and therefore we most willingly accept the force of these arguments" [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th March, 1965; Vol. 264, c. 24.]
I wonder at the attitude of scientists in other research establishments—other kinds of scientists working in other spheres of science. Are they not to have the 7 per cent. higher pension which is now being given on a discriminatory basis? I hope that they will get it. It would be splendid, but is it a precedent which the Treasury really wants to give in this way, and was the right place to start this in nuclear physics, which most people feel already commands a rather disproportionately large amount of the money spent on research in this country?
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) first proposed this Amendment and said on that occasion that it would be tragic if the standard of recruitment in nuclear physics in Government research establishments was to fall. I agree but, in the national interest, is it not more important to raise the standard of recruitment in other spheres of science and engineering? What justification is there for setting up as a position of special privilege a nuclear research establishment?
Then we look at the way in which it was put across in the House of Lords. The change took place in the course of 10 minutes. In the intervening period, the only noble Lord who had spoken was the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne, who, in this place, had not been found to be an over-persuasive advocate in favour of nuclear science. The noble Lord who proposed the Amendment was the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, a very distinguished former Permanent Under-Secretary to the Treasury and a very distinguished Chairman of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science—the ideal advocate, one would have thought, of a narrow special interest. The tactics were right—to do it, not in the Commons but in the House of Lords.
The lesson we have to draw is, first, that another place is not the right place in which to advocate special interests. It is the place that can bring the expertise and experience of its Members to the judgment of great principles, but in the weighing up of particular interests between one group and another we have to recognise that there is disguised by the dignity of the place the very particular interests that noble Lords have.
That this is a special interest is evident from the way in which Lord Bridges argued the case. He started by arguing the need to maintain the quality of recruitment in the one case as against the next-door research establishment at Harwell in the future, where there would have been different pension schemes. When he had won his point, when he had had it accepted by the Government, when the noble Lord, Lord Snow, proposed an Amendment granting it, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, went on to argue an entirely different point, which was comparability of pension rights as between the research establishment at the Rutherford Laboratory and that at Daresbury. It was good advocacy—and we all do it on behalf of the interests for which we speak here—but the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was speaking as chairman of a particular research council—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground. We do not criticise debates in another place. The hon. Gentleman can urge here what arguments he wishes for or against the acceptance of the Amendment, but not by quotation of an argument in another place.

Dr. Bray: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw at once anything that may go outside the rules of order.
The question remains: what do we do now? The Government are committed to what I think is a rather sorry Amendment and a rather sorry principle. They will be under very strong pressure to amend the pension rights throughout the Science Research Council—there will inevitably be pressures in that direction. The Government, however, should go further and give us the very firm assurance that many of us feel is necessary, and press still harder a reconsideration of the question of the transferability of pensions,

the question of mobility throughout industry, and between industry, universities and research establishments so that this becomes, not something we can only look forward to in the distant future, at the end of five years of a Labour Government but something which has a powerful and early influence on the raising of standards of productivity and the effectiveness of employment of manpower in this country at an early date.
I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us the assurance that this precedent having been set, the implications of it for scientists and others employed by the Science Research Council will be explored, and, also, that the still wider implications of the transferability of pensions will be fully considered by the Government.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman is dangerously near adopting the argument that, unless one can do everything, one should do nothing. Surely what we are doing here is to ensure that those who are doing very similar work to what is being done in the Atomic Energy Authority should not be penalised merely because on 1st April, 1965, they had become members of N.I.R.N.S.? It is surely equitable that those who have been transferred from one to another should be on an equal basis as to pension rights.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think from my saying that that I would not have great sympathy with his other point that the time may well have come when we should review all the pension rights of scientists, in universities and elsewhere. There may very well be need for this. However, that does not strengthen the hon. Gentleman's case for continuing what otherwise would be a gross injustice.
From the speech made by Lord Bridges in another place on 23rd February—I cannot quote from that speech tonight, because Lord Bridges is not a member of the Government—it is absolutely clear that this is an effort at least to ensure that there is no inequity as between those who joined before and those who joined after 1st April, 1965.


Surely we must try to even out the inequities where we see them. If we had to wait for a general review before we did that, unnecessary inequity would continue.
I feel that the hon. Gentleman is on a bad point here, because despite the wish of all of us to see scientists given proper reward in pension rights, nevertheless we do not wish to see an inequity continued, even though there was no doubt that it was an unintentional one.

Dr. Bray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other anomalies are created? For example, new recruits at the Rutherford Laboratory will receive the higher pension scheme, whereas new recruits within N.I.R.N.S. at Daresbury Laboratory will not receive the higher pension scheme? Further anomalies are created. In fact, we have increased the number of anomalies rather than diminished them.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: We may have to come to an agreement as to what is a nicely calculated balance. In my view, the anomaly which would be created if the Amendment were not accepted would be far greater than the anomalies about which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: It is with regret that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on accepting the Amendment. It is an anomaly that there was no reason to allow for. I am particularly glad that the Government, having made a mistake in rejecting the Amendment when it was originally moved in the House of Commons, are prepared now to accept That is as it should be. That this is the thin end of the wedge is no argument. All the other anomalies should be put right, too. Of course we will not be able to put them right tomorrow, but if we can get this right in regard to N.I.R.N.S. let us do so. I am very glad that it will be done.
Transferability of pension rights is a matter of the greatest national importance, because the mobility of our technical and scientific manpower and its need to be able to move from Government to industry and from industry to Government Departments is absolutely

essential. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have something to say on this when he replies.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: If it is a small crumb of comfort to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, may I hasten to say that I do not feel in any sense as sour about the Government accepting the Lords Amendment as does his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). Undoubtedly there must be a little interest on this side of the House, to put it no higher, in the fact that the Amendment was not accepted when it was originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Indeed, on that occasion he put his case with such persuasiveness that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), who was answering for the Government, said that he had argued his case very well.
There is a very real interest in why the Government Changed their mind, and in particular we would like to be assured where the balance lies with respect to the increase in anomalies as a result of this Amendment. However, we are very glad that the Government have seen fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Crosland: With the permission of the House, perhaps I may speak briefly again.
This has been an immensely difficult and complicated issue. To be frank, I think it has taken up a disproportionate amount of time on the part of hon. Members, Ministers, officials and everyone concerned. The reason we changed our minds since the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) moved his Amendment is that after listening to the many representations from the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, other staff organisations and scientists, we were convinced that their case was right. I make no particular apology for that. We were simply convinced by the arguments which they put forward, and that is the reason why the Government have changed their minds.
The fact is that, whichever decision was arrived at, there would have been a large number of anomalies in this pensions field. I agree that one could argue indefinitely whether there were slightly more or slightly less. At any rate, in


this field one cannot avoid the existence of a large number of anomalies, and we decided in the end that, based on the particular argument with reference to the Rutherford Laboratory, this was the right course to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), apart from his reference to anomalies, raised two other points. He asked whether other scientists in other scientific establishments would soon be asking for the same concession. When we had our discussions with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and other staff associations we gained the impression very strongly that outside this particular group of people there was not very strong pressure for this discriminatory measure, to use my hon. Friend's words, to be extended. We gained the strong impression

that by amending this, we were not leaving the door open for the complete extension of this type of pension scheme to all the other establishments coming under the Science Research Council.
My hon. Friend raised the wider long-term question of the transferability of pension rights more generally. This is a matter to which the Government attach the very greatest importance and, as my noble Friend, Lord Snow, made clear in another place, he is himself spending a good deal of his time trying to see if we can get some more complete and adequate transferability of pension rights. I can assure my hon. Friend that on this point there is no difference between us whatsoever. We attach as much importance to this as he does.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.—[Special Entries.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (COLLIERY WORKERS)

10.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
This Order amends the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Worker Supplementary Scheme) Order, 1948, made under Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. It is simple and it follows the precedent set by my right hon. Friend's predecessors.
The Scheme which was approved in 1948 by the then Minister of National Insurance, under the power given to him in Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1964, was set up at the request of both sides of the coal mining industry. The Scheme provides supplementary benefits for colliery workers and their dependants who are in receipt of benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act for colliery accidents or diseases. It is a contributory scheme and the cost of the benefits and of the administration is met by contributions from the National Coal Board and the colliery workers. The supplements to injury and disablement benefit are expressed in the Scheme as a proportion of those benefits and are increased automatically when industrial injury rates are increased as under the National Insurance &c. Act, 1964. The supplements to death benefit are expressed as sums and can be increased only by an amending Order.
This Order proposes to raise the rate of supplementary compensation for a widow who has children and who is aged 40 or more from 41s. to 47s. 6d. a week and for the childless widow under 40 from 12s. 3d. to 14s. a week. These increases are broadly proportionate to those made under the National Insurance &c. Act, 1964. To pay for the increased benefits which the Scheme will provide it is proposed to increase the employers' and the employees' contributions from 5½d. to 6¼d. These are the major amendments proposed in this Order.

10.37 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: This is a unique Scheme in that it is the only Supplementary Scheme which has been set up under the Industrial Injuries Act, 1948. I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions about it. As I understand, the Order does three things. It raises the contributions, it raises the benefits, and it makes certain changes in the Section dealing with investment provisions.
It is difficult to adjudge the increases in contribution or indeed the increases in benefits without having a copy of the annual accounts. I understand from Article 54 that the annual accounts are prepared for the Minister by the National Committee. I have not been able to find that they are published and, therefore, have not been able to find the figures for myself. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether in the last accounting year the fund was in deficit or in credit? If so, by how much, and what is the value of the investments which it holds?
The second point concerns contributions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the contributions of the National Coal Board. There are, of course, other contributions, calculated on a different basis, payable by other employers. The Coal Board, as the hon. Gentleman said, pays 6¼d. per ton of saleable output of deep-mined coal, but the other employers appear to pay, or will pay under the Order, 2s. 4d. a week in respect of each colliery worker.
These are quite different methods of calculating contribution by two kinds of employer. Do they nevertheless result in the same amount being paid per colliery worker? This seems to be the important point. Also, could the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of the fund is paid, in effect, by employer and what proportion by employee? As I say, I do not think that I have ever seen these accounts, and they may not be published. However, if they are published, and the hon. Gentleman tells me where I can find them, I can sort out the figures for myself.
It is rare on these occasions for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Bernard Taylor) to be absent. He almost always


makes a short speech about such Orders, congratulating the Government, whichever Government it be, on the wisdom of approving a scheme which increases to widows under 40 years of age under the Industrial Injuries Scheme as well as to those over 40, and he usually takes the opportunity to ask whether the Government will make increases for the Industrial Injuries "20-shilling" widow. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how this matter is coming along? I believe it has been referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee.
My last point concerns a quite new amendment of the original Scheme. Paragraph 7 of the Order amends Article 52 of the Scheme, and the hon. Gentleman did not refer to this in opening. It gives the National Committee an entirely new power to enter into certain bonds. Can the hon. Gentleman give any precedent for incorporating this power in the Scheme, and tell us whether any specific incident has given rise to the need for it? It is unusual for a National Committee of this kind to have power to enter into special contracts of this nature. It has not had it before. Usually, its acts through a trustee or nominee who has to be approved by the Minister, and, if there are plentiful funds at the back of the Scheme, I should doubt the need for the National Committee itself to have power to enter into bonds.
Those are rather detailed points, and I should not dream of holding up the Order, which, I am sure, has been approved by both sides of the industry. But, if the hon. Gentleman could either now or at some other time let me have answers to the questions I have raised, I should be very grateful.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: With the leave of the House, I shall be very pleased to reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I realise that both she and other hon. Members know about the Scheme, but, at this late hour, I had some sympathy for the House and did not want to go deeply into the whole question. I fully appreciate that the hon. Lady, who, at one time, exercised responsibility from this side of the House, takes a real interest in these matters and is just as much concerned about them as we are

on this side. It is my responsibility both to her and to the House to give as much information as I can in response to the constructive observations which she made.
The answer to her question about the accounts is simple. I have here a copy of the Annual Report and Accounts of the National Committee, which gives all the details. The national Committee consists of 10 members, five broadly representing the Coal Board and five representing the miners. It has a special group known as the Investment Advisory Panel for all its investment schemes. The hon. Lady can obtain a copy of this document from the Coal Board, but it will be a pleasure to send her one if she wishes to increase her knowledge of all the facts and figures of the investments. I shall see that my Department sends one to her as soon as possible. I hope, therefore, that, without boring the House, I may give her the percentages and position of the investments and be allowed to call that an answer in depth to the hon. Lady's first question.
On the second point—the value of the credits—perhaps for the benefit of those who may not know the scheme I might say that, as the hon. Lady said, it is unique, but it has been possible since 1920 under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for any employer and his employees to introduce such a scheme. However, it was not until 1948 that we had progression on the scheme—it is important for the House to note this—whereby the Ministry could act as agent for the scheme. But this does not cost the public purse any money whatever because the agency cost of managing the scheme is met by funds collected from the mining industry and the miners by the National Committee. I hope that that clarifies the position.
The other interesting question, which I did not avoid purposely, was in reference to Article 7, about the power of investment. In the draft we have given power to the National Committee to acquire through their investment powers the right to enter into bonds. If, for instance, it wanted to invest its money in leasehold property, until the amendment now proposed the National Committee would be in the anomalous position that it could go to an insurance company and would have to invest as a guarantee for any development a sum of money which would be


dead because it could not earn interest during the investment period.
The amendment in Article 7, which amends Article 52 of the consolidated scheme, enables such a bond to be obtained more cheaply from an insurance company if the National Committee can give a bond by way of indemnity to the company. As I said, the alternative is to deposit a large sum of money which would earn no interest. The Committee discovered by trial and error that under the consolidated scheme it had no power, and unless the House gives it this power, it still will not have the power to enter into such bonds. If the House agrees to the Order that power will be given to it.
The hon. Lady asked about the 2s. 1d. and 2s. 4d. Those who know the mines know what checkweighmen are, and also the pick sharpeners and all the other ancillary workers in and around the mines. These men have grown up over the ages to protect the rights of the colliers in respect of rates and weight of coal cut. They are not employed directly by the Coal Board. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady deserves constructive answers to her forthright questions. Since they are employed not by the Coal Board, but by the colliers in the mines, it is the colliers who have to find this extra money for the checkweighmen and the ancillary workers. They are, however, a small number in relation to the whole group in the mines. This does not mean that anybody is being penalised.
An incisive question was asked about the 20-shilling widow. These are matters which the National Committee must deal with. The hon. Lady asked what we were doing in this direction. If I were to develop the point, I might be considered to be out of order, because it has more to do with the current general review. Having given these answers, therefore, I hope that the House will give us the Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does it not seem strange to the hon. Gentleman that just at the time when one Government Department is bringing in a Bill to enfranchise leaseholds another Government Department is asking for powers for the National Committee to invest in leaseholds?

Mr. Harold Davies: There are many anomalies in human existence and it takes a lot of time for common sense to seep all the way down through the human chain of thought. Rather than get into metaphysical and philosophical discussion with the hon. Lady at this stage, I will grant her that one. Perhaps I had better leave it at that and say, as a quid pro quo, that I was surprised that the hon. Lady should object a little to the National Committee having the power of investing funds occasionally at a profit.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

RUBBER INDUSTRY (CANCER RISKS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

10.52 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I rise to initiate a short debate on a highly complex and technical subject not because I have any professional knowledge of it, but because I have been deeply shocked and disturbed at the picture of muddle and indifference which has been revealed by it.
The facts are, briefly, that the Ministry of Labour proposes to introduce a ban on four known carcinogens which have been used in the rubber industry. The manufacture of these chemicals in this country was stopped 15 years ago, in 1949, because of the known risks in their use, but they continued to be imported from Germany and some firms in the rubber industry were still using them in 1960. Some small firms may even be using them today. In addition, the cable industry was still using these chemicals until 1960.
Bladder cancer, which can result from the use of these substances, may develop over a period of 15 to 30 years in workers who have been in the industries concerned. Therefore, even if all use of these chemicals had ceased in 1950, new cases could still arise until about the year


1980. It is scandalous that it has taken so long for effective action to be introduced completely to ban these known dangerous substances.
It is also urgent that all men who have been employed not only in the rubber industry, but also in the cable industry and the dyestuffs industry and in that section of the bootmaking industry where rubber soles are put on to shoes, should be traced and warned and have regular screening.
I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what is being done about this, because it involves not merely the 500 men who were mentioned in the Minister's statement on 15th February but tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of workers in the various industries involved, and the responsibility for tracing these men seems to have been tossed backwards and forwards between the Ministry and industry rather like a shuttlecock. I would ask the Minister whether he would accept responsibility for this and for tracing also the workers who have left the industries concerned but who still may be at risk.
I know that it is a tremendous job, but somebody must undertake it and it really would seem that the Ministry of Labour is in the best possible position to do it, assuming that the various firms concerned will co-operate, as I am sure they will. In particular, have all the firms where workers may be at risk been notified by the medical inspectorate? If this has not been done, may it be done urgently? Because it may be that many small firms are unaware of the danger.
Would my hon. Friend agree with the need voiced by the T.U.C. as long ago as 1954 and supported by medical opinion that this disease should be put on the schedule of notifiable industrial diseases? How much longer are we to wait before this is done? This is regarded as the most hopeful and most important single step which could be taken to deal with this very serious problem.
As though all this muddle and delay were not enough the indictment is even more serious, because 11 years ago Dr. Case, of the Beatty Research Institute, reported that other dangerous substances used in the rubber industry should be investigated. The facts about the suppression

of some sections of his report at the request of the rubber manufacturers are now well known, but I cannot agree with the Minister that these omissions did not impede action, because as a direct result of the suppression, investigation of all possible cancer risks in the rubber industry has not been undertaken, and this, to me, is really unforgivable.
It is all the more serious since bladder tumour rates in the rubber industry have risen steadily since 1949 instead of dropping as might have been expected. At least one other chemical is suspect, and there may well be more, and it is really scandalous that men should be falling ill and dying and may be doing so because substances which should be narrowed down and identified have never been properly investigated.
In his statement on 15th February the Minister referred to a
full survey of these two … industries"—
the rubber industry and the cable industry, being undertaken by the inspectorate—
with a view to establishing that these particular substances are no longer being used and that action is being taken to screen present and past employees."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1965; Vol. 706, c. 850–1.]
I have just quoted the actual words the Minister used, but in the reports of his speech it was reported that he had said that a "full investigation" would be carried out, but, of course, this is not so, because from what he said in the House it appears that the survey is only concerned with the particular substances which have already been identified as being dangerous.
Since it is not really the function of the Ministry's inspectorate to carry out the detailed research required can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Medical Research Council, which has been considering this matter for some months, is now going to undertake, or is actually undertaking, this research? He will know that an answer to this question is very eagerly awaited, and it really is long overdue.
There are two other questions which arise from the Minister's statement on 15th February. He said that surveys had been carried out by the Factory Inspectorate of the dyestuffs and textile finishing industries in 1960 and 1961, and the rubber and cable making industries in 1961. Can the


Parliamentary Secretary say when these reports were published, and, if they were not published—the medical profession has no knowledge of them—can they be made available? I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of that point.
Can my hon. Friend also say why, following the survey of the cable making industry in 1961, urine screening was not insisted on as would seem to have been necessary?
This whole business is truly appalling. Only the report of the inquest on one victim, George Lucy, has brought many of these facts into the light of day. Even now more than 100 men at risk who have been traced and screened by Dr. Case and his colleagues in the past few weeks have heard nothing from the Ministry about screening arrangements, and Dr. Case and his colleagues have not been brought into consultation in any way. The matter is urgent, because there have been up to six deaths in the group of factories where Mr. Lacey worked, and four cases are under investigation.
How much longer are we to wait, both for a full investigation of all the possible hazards, and for a full-scale operation to trace all the men who can possibly be at risk? I appreciate that this whole sorry story took place before the present Minister took office, and that this past history is not really his responsibility, but his urgent action is vitally necessary now. I know that he is very concerned about it, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer some of the questions which I have asked. I hope that urgent action will be taken to put right, without any more delay, some of the serious defects which have been revealed in this industry and others related to it in connection with this very serious disease.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has raised this subject. It is a matter of great importance to many thousands of people employed in the industries which have been mentioned, the rubber and cable-making industries, and the textile finishing industries. It is also a matter of great importance to the unions whose members

are principally engaged in these industries, and, of course, to the T.U.C. itself, which has a very fine and honourable record in promoting better health in industry.
I accept that this is a very complex matter, and, as I have only a minute or two in which to make my points, I should like to concentrate on the three main aspects of the matter with which I hope the Minister will deal.
First, there is the need for the early detection of people who have been exposed to hazards in the industries concerned. I am aware that cytological screening units have been made available for the rubber and cable-making industries, but I put to the Minister what was so forcibly put by my hon. Friend, that it would be a good idea if this could be extended to the textile printing industry.
The second point is that it is necessary to have more effective preventive measures. We know that the Carcinogenic Substances Orders are shortly to come into force, and this is a welcome step; but there is a need for a major survey and to carry this a good deal wider into the chemicals that are used in these industries.
I note that in his statement of 15th February my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour referred to the possibility of the Medical Research Council investigating this fully. I hope that we shall get more definite answers from my hon. Friend tonight on the possibilities of this investigation.
Finally, I urge on the Minister a somewhat new approach to the whole problem of industrial health. I think that, in the past, there has been a natural tendency to concentrate on a few known and well-defined industrial diseases, and, of course, on the danger of accidents in industry. I have a feeling—and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have evidence about this—that, in the future, the danger to industrial health is likely to come more and more from the use of chemicals in manufacturing industry. Because this is so, and because chemical processes in manufacturing industry are constantly changing, the result is that the industrial worker is often in the position of a guinea pig. This is not good enough.


What we need, and must urge upon the Minister, is much greater research into the dangers of new manufacturing processes, before they are introduced into industry.

11.6 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ernest Thornton): I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friends have said on this very important subject. It is a matter which, quite rightly, has given rise to considerable concern. I can assure the House that this concern is shared by my Department and by my colleagues in the Government. It is also fair, and, I think, encouraging, to say that I have found that it is shared by both sides of the industries concerned. We are all anxious to ensure that everything possible is done to overcome this serious problem, and to ensure that workers are no longer exposed to these risks, and, in the case of those unfortunate enough to have been exposed in the past, to give them the necessary medical protection.
The problem, as I see it, will be overcome by taking action in a number of ways as soon as practicable, and, not, I would respectfully suggest, by recriminations about what happened some years ago. I think that we have noted what happened, and that we have drawn certain lessons from it. Reference has been made to the alleged suppression of evidence in the medical paper about occupational bladder cancer in the rubber industry, published in 1954. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) also made reference to this. On this question, I have nothing to add to the account which my right hon. Friend gave to the House on 15th February, except to say that my right hon. Friend and I have read the papers and looked into the matter closely, and we are quite convinced that the amendments were made without any improper motive and without any thought of suppressing medical evidence.
For the benefit of my hon. Friends, I should like to say that I am not without experience of some of these serious industrial diseases. As a trade union secretary for 30 years, I had to deal, from the point of view of the union and

of
the members' interests, with a very serious industrial disease. One of the problems which I, as a responsible trade union officer, had was to attempt to balance the need to call attention to the hazard with the desire not to add unduly to the mental strain and suffering of persons who may have been at risk, many of whom might not have contracted the disease. Seeing that there is still considerable anxiety, as voiced by at least one of my hon. Friends, about this document, I propose to place a copy of the original draft, with the amendments and the additions marked, in the Library for hon. Members to see. As to the rôle of the then Senior Medical Inspector, it is fair to say that this has tended to be misrepresented, and that he, taking the view that these medical findings were very valuable, took a leading part in obtaining agreement to publication.
It has been suggested that my Department has been unduly late in taking the necessary action.
I was asked about legislation. I would point out that, for reasons of practicability, it is not our policy to make special regulations for each of the vast range of dangerous substances used in industry. There are provisions in the Factories Act, as my hon. Friend knows, relating to protection against dangerous substances in general, and these provisions are actively enforced. In the first instance we prefer to rely on these general provisions and on encouraging industry to take the necessary action itself.
In his statement of 15th February my right hon. Friend described the efforts made by the manufacturers' associations in this field. However, on finding indications that the recommendations of the manufacturers' associations might not be gaining total compliance and that importation from abroad might be continuing, it was decided that special legislation was required, and the first drafts of Instruments to prohibit the manufacture, use and importation of certain carcinogenic substances were circulated for comment last year.
Hon. Members have suggested at one time or another that once the existence of this hazard had been at least prima facie established, more rapid progress should have been made, particularly in


providing for closer medical supervision or those who had been subjected to it. I find myself in very great sympathy with this view, but in fairness I must point out that we can see this problem much more clearly with the knowledge which we now possess than would have been possible 10 years ago. Medical knowledge and resources in this field, as in others, have been developing during this period, and indeed it is only comparatively recently that it has become possible to provide facilities on a wide scale for screening people who may have contracted this disease.
I should like to turn to the question of action to deal with this health problem. On 15th February my right hon. Friend described the steps which he proposed to take, and I am sure that the House wishes to know what progress has been made. My right hon. Friend said that the Factory Inspectorate was to carry out a full survey of the rubber and cable-making industries. This survey has been completed. The Factory Inspectorate visited 474 factories and the inspectors' reports show that they obtained the fullest co-operation from management. Full information was given about the anti-oxidants and hardeners used in the past.
The reports on the results of this survey are being examined, and it appears that the use of carcinogenic substances has now ceased entirely, except that in some cases imported materials have been used. The Factory Inspectorate is carrying out some checks to find out whether these imported materials contain carcinogenic substances. Prohibition of imports could not take place until there had been a prohibition on their manufacture by home industry. My right hon. Friend also said that the industries and firms concerned would be asked to identify and trace employees and ex-employees who might have been exposed to the substances and that he was providing a warning card for the purpose.
In the case of the rubber and cable-making industries, these arrangements have been made as part of the survey to which I referred. Employers in these industries have co-operated fully in this operation. I ought perhaps to stress that we do not expect large numbers to require treatment. In certain areas, however,

where numbers are concentrated, there may be a strain on the pathological laboratories who will carry out these examinations. It has been thought right, therefore, to give priority to the rubber and cable-making industries; and I will bear in mind the points relating to other industries made by my hon. Friends.
We will cover the chemical and other industries as soon as practicable and we are already in consultation with the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers to work out detailed arrangements. Priority is being given to the preparation of the Regulations and Order prohibiting the manufacture, use and importation of certain carcinogenic substances, although I am not yet able to say precisely when they will be made.
Reference has been made to expert opinion which is critical of some aspects of these Instruments, particularly their scope. I will take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding which may have arisen about our attitude to the comments and criticisms which have been received. It seems to have been assumed in some quarters that we have rejected these comments because we have not yet given our views on those we have received. This is not so.
In accordance with the usual practice, when these draft Instruments were circulated a number of months were given during which interested organisations and persons could submit their comments. These comments must be considered collectively. The object of circulating preliminary drafts is to obtain the views of interested and expert parties. We have been particularly fortunate with these Instruments in getting a good deal of expert opinion in the comments which have been submitted to us, and these comments are now being carefully considered. The Factory Inspectorate is looking into technical questions which arise and consultations will shortly be started with a view to meeting those criticisms.
Both my hon. Friends raised the question of research. This is a matter on which consultations continue with the Medical Research Council. We understand from the Council that basic research, which it regards as being part of the general problem of research into cases of cancer, is constantly in progress and that this work will


continue. Apart from basic research, however, there is a need in our view and in the view of the M.R.C. for investigation into specific industrial problems. As regards the rubber industry, I understand that some months ago the Rubber Manufacturing Employers' Association approached the M.R.C. with suggestions for an investigation. The M.R.C. has been looking into the evidence and will soon be replying to that inquiry.
The Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, who is constantly in touch with other medical authorities on all questions of occupational disease, is proposing to establish an advisory panel of medical experts on bladder cancer, similar to existing advisory panels dealing with other hazards. My right hon. Friend will be discussing with his Industrial Health Advisory Committee what new measures may be needed in the light of developing knowledge.
The question was posed about making bladder cancer a notifiable industrial disease under the Factories Act. This is being considered and will be submitted by my right hon. Friend to the Industrial Health Advisory Committee. There is in some quarters doubt as to whether a notification requirement would be the best way of getting the information, but I assure my hon. Friends that my right hon. Friend will be discussing what is the best method with his Advisory Committee.
My right hon. Friend said on 15th February that he was to receive a deputation on this whole matter from the T.U.C. This deputation has now been received. It included trade union representatives from each of the National

Joint Industrial Councils of the two industries which we have been primarily discussing tonight. A number of interesting questions were raised and I think it can be said that both sides found the discussion very useful.
The House will see—from what I have said tonight and from what my right hon. Friend previously stated—that there is a good deal which needs to be done to overcome this problem. I hope that the House will agree that a proper start has been made. I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for their helpful suggestions, and I will certainly look into the questions raised with reference to the textile printing and other industries.
I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green that I will approach all this with a sense of deep personal interest and that, as one with long personal experience of some of these allied problems, I will give them the closest consideration.

Mrs. Butler: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could say that, when the Medical Research Council has replied to the rubber manufacturers and decided what should be done, the report will be made public knowledge for those of us who, although most deeply interested in the matter, have no direct association with the industry?

Mr. Thornton: I cannot give a specific undertaking now, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will bear that request in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.